id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
82,522,861 |
On the complaint lodged by Vivek, the respondent police registered acase in Crime No.161 of 2015 and after completing the investigation, hasfiled a charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.133 of 2016 before the learned ThirdAdditional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, against thepetitioners/accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 114, 324, 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) ofSC/ST Act, for quashing which, the petitioners and the defacto complainantare before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.M.Mahalingam,Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Saptur Police Station is present.Thedefacto complainant is present and the petitioners are also present and theiridentifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to theconfirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) through Mr.M.Mahalingam, Special Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Saptur Police Station.Today, the defacto complainant and one other witness, by nameAlagarsamy, who was injured in the incident, are present.Under normal circumstances, an offence under Section 307 of theIndian Penal Code and an offence under SC/ST Act cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.However, in this case,it is seen that the accused had thrown a brick on the defacto complainant andAlagarsamy and they have suffered simple injuries.That apart, thepetitioners and the defacto complainant belong to the same village and at theintervention of elders in the locality, the parties have arrived at anamicable settlement.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also submitted thatpeace prevails in the area between the two communities.They have filed ajoint compromise memo dated 24.04.2017, in which, in paragraph Nos.2 to 4, itis stated as follows:Taking into consideration the nature of the weapon used and thenature of the injuries sustained by the victims, this petition is allowed andthe entire prosecution in Spl.S.C.No.133/2016 on the file of the learnedThird Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in respect ofall the accused including those who are not before this Court are herebyquashed.The joint compromise memo dated 24.04.2017 shall form part of thisorder.However, the petitionerss are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only) each to the Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from today.1.The Third Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Saptur Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
825,242 |
One Kanchan Singh held agricultural lands in his Bhumiswami rights.Said Kanchan Singh had two daughters namely, Somabai and Budhabai.Said Somabai is married to accused Badansingh and has three sons, namely, Sewaram, Suresh and Mahesh.Bachchu Singh has two sons Jabarsingh and Janak Singh.Both of these persons have been joined as accused in the present matter.Three sons of Jabar Singh, namely, Kiledar Singh, Bahadur Singh and Surendra Singh have also been joined as accused in the present matter.Chhaviram's son Barelal is also an accused.Shriram Singh, Preetam Singh and Bharat Singh have also been made accused in the present matter.In all thirteen accused persons have faced the trial.After the said order, a partition Parcha was prepared and certain lands were allotted in share of said Somabai.After learning about the said ex parte order, Budhabai filed an appeal to the S.D.M. who after setting aside the ex parte order passed by Naib Tahsildar remitted the matter to the Naib Tahsildar for its disposal in accordance with law.It is not in dispute that on the date of the incident the partition proceedings were pending in the Court of Naib Tahsildar.Somabai and State of M.P. were also joined as parties.In the suit, it was contended that the order passed by Naib Tahsildar relating to partition was set aside by the appellate Court and as there was no partition of the family properties, said Somabai had no right, title or authority to transfer the properties.In the suit, it was also contended that Sy. Nos. 331, 334 and 337 were in exclusive possession of Budhabai and her family, therefore, the defendants had no authority to enter upon the land or dispossess the said plaintiff Budhabai.District Judge and Budhabai and Shankar Singh were cross-examined.In the cross-examination said Budhabai and Shankar Singh admitted that deceased Kanchan Singh during his life time had partitioned the properties and had given separate properties to each of his daughter.On 22-2-96 Babu Singh s/o Bharat Singh r/o Village Baghedi gave an information at Police Station, Pawai that firing was going on between Shriram Gurjar and other party Shankar Singh.After receiving the information at 11.30 a.m. A.S.I. Saligram Sharma alongwith Head Constable Banke Singh and others proceeded to the scene of occurrence.The shots fired by Shriram Singh, Sewaram Singh and Kilua hit Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh, on which said two persons fell.One bullet hit P.W. 2 Ramprakash on the left arm; while the other one hit him on the left leg.The other pellets hit the witness on chest and abdominal region.On the alarms raised by P.W. 2 Ramprakash, Kalyan, Naresh, Omvir and others came to the spot; seeing the oncoming persons, the accused left the spot.He also reported that his uncle Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh died on the spot and he himself was injured.After receiving Dehati Nalish Ex. P-5, said Saligram Sharma registered a case at Crime No. 0/96 relating to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149, IPC.After receiving the first information report, said Saligram referred P.W. 2 Ramprakash and P.W. 3 Harveer Singh for their medical examination and medical assistance under Exs.P-1-A and P-2-A. Thereafter he prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead bodies of deceased Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh.In presence of Panch witnesses summoned on the spot under Ex. P-6, Panchanamas of the dead bodies of Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh were prepared under Exs. P-7 and P-8 respectively.Thereafter under Exs.P-13 and P-14, the dead bodies were sent to the District Hospital, Bhind.Said Saligram Sharma seized the plain and stained earth from near the body of Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh under Exs.Under Ex. P-17, he recovered six fired cartridges of 12 bore gun, three brass empties of the bullets, three Tiklis, one Ballam and other articles.On 23-2-96, said Saligram Sharma recorded the statements of Kalyan Singh and Babu Singh.On 24-2-96, he recorded the statements of Naresh Singh, Ummed Singh, Ajjudi Singh and Shankar Singh.On 1-3-96, under Ex. P-18, he arrested accused Janak Singh, and under Ex. P-19 he arrested accused Bahadur Singh.On 2-3-96, memorandums of accused Janak Singh and Bahadur Singh were prepared under Exs.P- 20 and P-21 respectively.Under Exs. P-22 and P-23 a Lathi from Janak Singh and yet another Lathi from Bahadur Singh were recovered.It appears that thereafter the investigation was handed over to P.W. 11 Ramprakash Sengar.Said Ramprakash Sengar took up the investigation and arrested accused Bharat Singh, Mahesh Singh, Jabar Singh and Badan Singh under Exs. P-28 to P-31 respectively.On the information of Kiledar Singh relating to the gun, memorandum under Ex. P-39 was prepared, but the gun could not be recovered.Accused Shriram Singh was arrested on 5-10-96 at sub-jail, Bhind where he was already lodged in connection with some other offence.When this witness wanted to intervene, Sevaram Singh fired from his 12 bore gun which hit him below the neck and above the right side of the chest.Second fire hit him near umbilical region, went through and through from the right side.The third fire hit him on the left leg.JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.This Judgment shall dispose of Death Reference No. 1/2000 (State of M.P. v. Shriram and Ors.), Criminal Appeal No. 1/2000 (Bharat Singh v. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 652/99 (Shriram Singh v. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 5/2000 (Janak Singh and Ors.All the three sons of said Somabai have been made accused in the present case.Budhabai the other daughter of Kanchan Singh married one Achhelal.From the wedlock, she was blessed with Shankar Singh, Wakeel Singh, Vishambhar Singh and Kalyan Singh.Said Shankar has two sons, namely, Ramprakash and Harveer Singh.On the fateful day, in the unfortunate incident Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh died of gun shot injuries.From the records, it appears that Bachchu Singh, Chhaviram and Daroo Singh are brothers.During pendency of the said proceedings, under Ex. D-22 said Somabai under a registered deed dated 4-6-93, registered on 5-6-93, sold Sy.No. 331 admeasuring 0.261 Rakwa, Sy.No. 334 admeasuring 0.292 Rakwa and Sy. No. 337 admeasuring 0.428 Rakwa to Preetam Singh, Mahaveer Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh.In the sale deed, it was mentioned that the possession of the property as held by the seller was delivered to the said purchasers.It would be useful to note that Daroo Singh apart from having Shriram Singh, Preetam Singh and Bharat Singh as his sons has two more sons, namely, Hira Singh and Mahaveer Singh.From the Document Ex. D-22, it would appear that Preetam Singh, Mahaveer Singh and Bharat Singh, the three sons of Daroo Singh had purchased half of the property; while accused Jabar Singh s/o Bachchu Singh had purchased the balance half of the above referred survey numbers.It is not in dispute before us that Budhabai wife of Achhelal and daughter of Kanchan Singh filed Civil Suit No. 14-A/93 in the Court of IVth Addl.District Judge, Bhind against the said purchasers Preetam Singh, Mahaveer Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh.The learned IVth Addl.District Judge after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the documentary evidence and other evidence available on the record came to the conclusion that a tubewell exists on Sy. No. 335 and the lands in dispute that is Sy.While granting the application of plaintiff Budhabai, it directed under its order dated 24-1-94 that the defendants stand restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiff Budhabai.It is also not in dispute that Preetam Singh, Mahaveer Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh being dis-satisfied and aggrieved of the order passed by the learned trial Court took up the matter to the High Court in Misc.The appeal came up for hearing before the High Court on 23-2-94 that is almost after about one month of the injunction order passed by the trial Court.The High Court on 23-2-94 issued notices to the respondents to show cause against admission.After hearing counsel for the appellants on IA No. 1/94, instead of staying the operation of the injunction order, the Court directed that the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the disputed Khasra Nos. 331, 334 and 337 of Village, Baghedi until further orders.This is the background which led to the murder of Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh and injuries to Ramprakash and Harveer Singh.Said Ramprakash (P.W. 2) informed the police officer that from his house when he reached on Tivaria, he found Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh sitting there.He saw that in his field known as "15 no." (at some places referred as 15 Bigha field), accused Sewaram and Shriram Singh came armed with guns, and the accused Preetam Singh started cutting mustard crop.His uncle Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh asked them not to cut the crops on which accused Shriram Singh and Sewaram started firing from their guns.At the same time Kilua @ Kiledar Singh armed with a gun, and the other accused persons viz; Bharat Singh, Barelal, Janak Singh, Bahadur Singh, Surendra Singh, Mahesh, Suresh, Badan Singh, Jabar Singh and Preetam Singh, armed with Farsa, Barchha and Lathis came to the spot.All such persons surrounded P.W. 2 Ramprakash, Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh.Shriram Singh, Sewaram and Kilua started firing the gun.On 26-9-96 under Ex. P-45 and on 18-10-96 under Ex. P-46 accused Barelal and Sewaram were arrested.On 23-5-96 he recorded the statements of witnesses Amar Singh, Rambharose and Hargyan Singh.On 11-4-96 he recorded statements of Ramprakash Singh and Harveer Singh, and on 6-10-96, he recorded statements of Kalyan Singh and Pan Singh.On completion of the investigation, being armed with the first information report, the medical report, autopsy report, seizure memos and the statements of the witnesses, the police filed the challan against the thirteen accused persons.During the trial, the accused started asserting that Somabai was in possession of the property; they had sown the crop; they were in possession of the property; and in fact the complainant side was the aggressor, and as the complainant party was firing indiscreetely, the shots fired from their own guns had hit their own persons.They also submitted that accused Bahadur Singh, Janak Singh and Kok Singh had also suffered injuries and as no explanation was coming forth from the side of complainant party explaining the injuries found on the persons of the accused, they were entitled to be acquitted.Accused Shriram also took the defence that his mauser gun was deposited with D.W. 1 Sanjay Sharma for its repair and as between 18 to 23rd February, 96 he had gone o see his nephew at Chhapiheda, he has been wrongly implicated.Said Kartal Singh and Sanjay Sharma have been examined as D.W. 4 and D.W. 1 respectively.Accused Sewaram in his defence examine D.W. 2 Ramsingh, husband of the sister of Sewaram, and D.W. 3 Naresh Singh who contended before the trial Court that accused Sewaram on the date of the incident was in Village, Shyampura.Kartal Singh D.W. 4 also stated before the Court that between 18th to 23rd February, 96, accused Shriram and Preetam Singh had come to him at Village, Chhapikheda.D.W. 5 Jaldhari Singh, father-in-law of accused Suresh stated before the Court that his son-in-law accused Suresh on the date of the incident was at Village Sukand.D.W. 13 Pooranlal a person who came from Bhopal stated before the Court that accused Surendra and some others were staying in the lodge on the date of the incident.D.W. 7 Raghuveer Singh and D.W. 9 Nathu Singh asserted in the defence of accused Kiledar Singh that on the date of the incident he was at Village Bahera.D.W. 8 Ramswaroop and D.W. 12 Kalyan Singh stated before the Court that accused Barelal on the date of the incident was in Village, Arjunpura.D.W. 10 J.P. Sharma a Principal of the private school stated that accused Bharat Singh was present on his duty as a Teacher on the date of the incident.The prosecution in support of its case had examined as many as eleven witnesses.P.W. 1 Dr. Rakesh Sharma had examined Ramprakash (P.W. 2) and Harveer (P.W. 3) and also performed the autopsy on the body of deceased Vishambhar and Wakeel Singh.He also testified that accused Bahadur, Janak Singh and Kok Singh had marks of the injuries on their persons.P.W. 2 Ramprakash Singh, P.W. 3 Harveer Singh and P.W. 4 Kalyan Singh supported the prosecution allegations and stated before the trial Court that accused Shriram Singh, Sewaram Singh and Kiledar Singh fired from their gun; while accused Preetam caused injuries to deceased Wakeel Singh by means of a Farsa and accused Barelal caused an injury to deceased Wakeel Singh by means of Barchha.P.W. 5 Pan Singh was examined to prove Exs.P-9 and P-10, but he was declared hostile.P.W. 6 Saligram Sharma A.S.I. stated before the Court that he made the investigation in part.P.W. 7 constable Rakesh Solanki informed the Court in his statements that clothes of the deceased persons were seized in his presence at the hospital.P.W. 8 Ramsanehi though was declared hostile, but in answers to the leading questions, supported the prosecution.P.W. 9 Babu Singh who gave the information under Ex. P-11 and is also a witness to Exs.P-12, P-15 and P-16 and P-17 was declared hostile in part as he was making certain statements contrary to his case diary statements.Jitwar Singh proved the arrest of Mahesh Singh, Bharat Singh, Jabar Singh, Badan Singh and Janak Singh.He also proved the memorandums prepared under the informations of these witnesses and also proved the recoveries made from them.P.W. 11 Ramprakash Sengar stated before the Court that he continued with the investigation after it was handed over to him.The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, held that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt.Holding present to be a rare case of rarest class, it awarded capital punishment to Shriram Singh and Sewaram Singh for committing brutal and gruesome murder of Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh.Accused Shriram Singh and Sewaram Singh were also convicted under Section 148 were awarded three years R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine three months R.I. was awarded.Accused Shriram Singh and Sewaram Singh were also convicted under Section 307/149, IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment for commission of the said offence and were also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, each is required to undergo R.I. for six months.Accused Shriram Singh was also convicted under Section 201 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine he is required to undergo three months R.I.. Remaining accused viz., Janak Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bharat Singh, Mahesh Singh, Badan Singh, Jabar Singh, Preetam Singh, Kiledar Singh, Suresh Singh, Surendra Singh and Barelal were convicted under Section 302/149, IPC for each murder of Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh and were sentenced to life imprisonment under each count.Fine of Rs. 1,000/-under each count was also imposed; in default of payment of fine each accused is required to undergo R.I. for six months.The above referred eleven accused persons were also convicted under Section 307/149, IPC and are sentenced to life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine each defaulting accused has to undergo R.I. for six months.All the sentences awarded to the eleven persons are to run concurrently.All the thirteen accused persons have also been convicted under Section 148, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine each defaulting accused has to undergo R.I. for three months.The learned trial Judge in view of the capital punishment awarded to two of the accused has made the reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is also submitted that the complainant party was armed with fire arms and as they were firing indiscreetly, the shots fired by them had hit their own people; the accused persons cannot be held guilty.It is also contended that Ex. P-5 Dehati Nalish cannot be taken to be the first information report because the information was already received at Police Station, Pawai under Ex. P-11, and as the police authority proceeded to investigate into the matter, Ex. P-11 alone can be considered as a first information report.It is further submitted that Ex. P-11 was lodged by an eye-witness and as the said eye-witness did not give the details of the incident, it must be presumed that Ex. P-5 is a forged and concocted piece of document.It was next contended that the learned Court below did not properly appreciate the defence of the accused persons that they were not present on the spot, and that gun of accused Shriram was given for repair and if the defence of the accused persons is taken in their true perspective, each of the accused is entitled to be acquitted.It is also submitted that except one injury found on the person of Wakeel Singh which is an incised injury, the injuries caused to the deceased and witnesses were result of shooting from fire arms; the persons who were not armed with guns could not be convicted.It is also submitted that the crop cut by Preetam Singh was not seized from the spot, therefore, it must be held that Preetam Singh was not present on the spot, and the accused persons were not cutting the crop.It was also submitted that in the case diary statements the accused persons asserted that all the thirteen persons took part in the said incident and caused injuries to almost every victim, but during the course of the trial as the witnesses have changed their stand and started asserting only against Shriram Singh, Sewaram, Preetam Singh, Barelal and Kiledar and did not speak even a single word against the remaining eight, it must be held that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable.For the capital punishment, it was submitted by him that the manner in which at least nine or more shots were fired from three guns which led to death of two and injuries to other two, would clearly show that the accused persons meant some real business on the spot and infact had come on the spot with an intention to commit murder.He also submitted that the witnesses did not change their version, but were speaking the truth before the Court.We have heard the parties at length and have perused the original records.P. W. 2 Ram Prakash Singh has stated that on the fateful day at about 10.00 A.M. Preetam Singh came on the spot and started cutting the crop.According to him Preetam Singh was accompanied with Sewaram Singh, Shriram Singh and Kiledar Singh and each of them was armed with a gun.He was also accompanied by Janaklal, Jabar Singh, Barelal, Bharat Singh, Bahadur Singh, Surendra Singh, Suresh, Mahesh and Badan Singh.His uncle Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh asked the accused persons, on which a shot was fired on Wakeel Singh which hit him on his chest.Sevaram fired from his 12 bore gun which hit Wakeel Singh on the left side of the chest.At the same time, Preetam Singh gave a farsa blow on the head of Wakeel Singh.Borelal hit Wakeel Singh on the lower region of chest by means of a Barcha.Shriram Singh fired from his mouzar gun which hit Vishambar Singh on the left side of his chest.Shriram yet fired another shot which hit Vishambhar Singh on his left hand.The fourth fire hit him on the left arm and the fifth shot hit him on the right thigh.According to the witness, after seeing the ghastly incident and suffering the injuries he raised alarms, on which, his uncle Kalyan Singh came on the spot.It is also submitted by him that Kalyan Singh, Naresh, Umedh Singh, Khalifa alias Ajjudi and his brother Arveer came on the spot.Naresh after coming on the spot fired his gun, therefore, the accused persons started fleeing away.The witness further says that on arrival of others, Kilva alias Kiledar fired from his gun, which hit Arveer on his left shoulder.In Paragraph 8 he has stated that when the guns were being fired the other accused persons had surrounded them.P.W. 3 Harveer Singh who is also an injured person has stated that after hearing the alarms when he came out of his house, he saw that 14-15 persons were going toward the field No. 15 and those persons were shouting that they would kill.Seeing them, he alongwith Kalyan Singh, Naresh Singh and Umedh Singh went towards the field.On way, Ajjudi alias Khalifa also joined them.He has stated that Shriram Singh fired from his Mouzar gun on his uncle Vishambhar Singh, Sevaram Singh fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun on Wakeel Sing.Preetam Singh had hit Wakeel Singh, by means of a Farsa.Barelal hit Wakeel Singh on his chest and abdominal region and Sevaram caused injuries by means of gun fire to Ram Prakash Singh.When he and his uncle Kalyan Singh asked Sevaram and Shriram, as to what were they doing, Kiledar Singh fired 3-4 shots from his gun.The shot fired by Kiledar Singh hit him on his right shoulder.On Naresh's shooting two air fire, accused persons fled away.In Paragraph 7 he has given the names of the miscreants as Shriram Singh, Preetam Singh, Bharat Singh, Barelal, Jabar Singh, Janak Singh, Kilva alias Kiledar Singh, Bahadur Singh, Surendra Singh, Sevaram, Suresh, Mahesh and Badan Singh.P.W. 8 Kalyan Singh is yet another eye witness who has stated that after seeing 14-15 persons going towards the field, he alongwith Umedh, Naresh and Harveer went towards the field, and on way Ajjudi alias Khalifa also joined them.After reaching the field/tubewell, he saw that Shriram Singh and Sevaram were shooting Vishambhar Singh and Wakeel Singh.Shriram Singh and Sevaram Singh also fired on Ram Prakash Singh.According to the witness, Kiledar Singh fired at him but the shot hit Harveer Singh.Preetam Singh gave a Farsa blow on the head of Wakeel Singh.On Naresh's shooting two air fire, accused persons fled away from the spot.According to him the miscreants who came to the field were present in the Court.Sevaram, Shriram Singh and Kiledar Singh were armed with gun.Preetam Singh was armed with a Farsa while Barelal was armed with a Ballam and the rest of the accused were armed with lathies.From the statement of these witnesses it would prima facie appear that Shriram Singh, Sevaram Singh, Preetam Singh, Barelal and Kiledar Singh had taken active part in the incident, wherein two persons lost their life and P.W. 2 Ram Prakash and P.W. 3 Harveer have suffered serious injuries.To P.W. 1 and other witnesses the relations between the parties and the property dispute was suggested, which was not denied by them.In Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 we have already referred to the property dispute.The property originally belonged to Kanchan Singh, which according to the material available on the record was partitioned by him amongst his two daughters.Somabai made an application to the revenue authorities for effecting partition.The application was allowed ex parte, but the said ex parte order was later on set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the matter was remitted to the Tehsildar for deciding the application in accordance with law.During the pendency of the said application, Somabai, on 4-6-93/5-6-93 sold survey Nos. 331, 334 and 337 to Preetam Singh, Mahaveer Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh.Budha Bai grand-mother of P.W. 2 Ram Prakash, P.W. 3 Harveer and mother of deceased Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh had filed Civil Suit No. 14-A/93 in the Court of 4th Addl.District Judge, Bhind against the purchasers from Somabai.In the said suit, she had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1-2 C.P.C.. The suit and the application were contested but the learned 4th Addl.District Judge, Bhind recorded a finding in favour of Budha Bai and restrained the purchasers from interfering with the possession of plaintiff Budha Bai.Being aggrieved by the said order Preetam Singh, Mahavir Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh filed Misc.Appeal No. 59/94 before the High Court.On 23-2-94, i.e., almost about one month of the injunction order, the High Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the facts would clearly show that possession of the property was given to Somabai by her father and while alienating the property under the sale deed she delivered actual physical possession of the property to the purchasers.The further submission is that as the purchasers who are arrayed as accused were in actual physical possession, therefore, they were entitled to exercise right of private defence.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the facts would clearly show that Budha Bai and her family were in exclusive possession of the property and being the law abiding citizens, instead of taking the law in their own hands, Budha Bai had gone to the Court and obtained an injunction against the purchasers.Budha Bai had filed a suit and injunction was granted in her favour on 24-1-94 and the defendants of the suit were restrained from interfering with her possession.The High Court did not stay the operation of the injunction order but simply directed that the parties shall maintain the status quo.In the present case, accused Bahadur suffered four injuries, Janak Singh suffered four injuries and accused Koke Singh suffered three injuries.The certificates are available on the record as Ex. D-4-C, Ex. D-5-C and Ex. D-6-C. It is not even the defence case that these three persons were owners of the property or were in possession of the property or had something to do with the property.According to Ex. D-22 the property was sold in favour of Preetam Singh, Mahavir Singh, Bharat Singh and Jabar Singh.The five accused persons who have taken active part in the incident namely; Sevaram, Shriram, Kiledar, Preetam Singh and Barelal have not suffered even a single scratch.In a case like present where the persons who caused injuries to the prosecution witnesses had not suffered even a single injury would be required to inform the Court that apprehending some danger to their life or to life of their kith and kins, they were required to open attack on the prosecution witnesses.True it is that Kiledar Singh and Bahadur Singh are sons of Jabar Singh, but that in itself would not be sufficient to prove that the accused persons apprehended such aminent danger that they were required to open the fire, that too repeatedly and cause gun injury and other injuries.The facts show that two of the persons died on the spot while the other two suffered number of the injuries.According to defence of Sevaram Singh, on the date of the incident he was in village Shyampura.Shriram Singh and Preetam Singh have also taken the defence that they had gone to Chhapiheda.After going through the statements of Sanjay Sharma and on perusal of Ex. D-7, we are unable to hold that between 15-2-96 to 26-9-96 the gun remained in deposit with said Sanjay Sharma.D.W. 2 Rai Singh brother-in-law of accused Sevaram and D.W. 4 Naresh Singh have suggested that Sevaram had purchased certain land in village Shyampura and on the date of the incident, said Sevaram was at village Shyampura.This evidence prima facie does not inspire confidence.Between 26-6-96 to 28-4-99, they never made any complaint to the Courts or to the police authorities that Sevaram Singh was falsely implicated and his presence was wrongly shown on the spot, while in fact he was not on the spot on the date of the incident.These two witnesses Rai Singh and Naresh Singh are real brothers and Rai Singh is the husband of sister of Sevaram.These persons could not even give the proper reasons for remembering the particular date.Shriram Singh and Preetam Singh are real brothers.According to Kartar Singh, between 18th Feb. to 23rd Feb. he was unwell and accused Shriram Singh and Preetam Singh had come to his house at village Chhapiheda.In support of the contention, the witness has not filed his medical report, medical certificate or even the medical prescriptions.The witness was working as a Garden Inspector and on the date of the incident he was posted at Chhapiheda.If he was Government servant/servant of the local body and had taken leave because he was unwell, then atleast he could file a copy of his leave application or a certificate of his employer that being unwell he did not come on duty between 14th Feb. to 22nd Feb. The statements of Kartar Singh do not inspire confidence.D.W. 5 Jaldhari Singh is father-in-law of accused Suresh.He has simply said that on the date of the incident accused Suresh was with him at village Sukand, how could he remember the particular date or what persuaded him to remember that the accused was at his house on the date of the incident, has not been shown by him.His defence also appears to be concocted.D.W. 6 Vishwanath Singh and D.W. 13 Pooran Lal have been examined by the defence to prove the defence of alibi raised by the accused Surendra.D.W. 13 had come from Bhopal.According to him he was holding the office of Manager of Muktha Lodge, Ghodha Nikas Mandir, Tamlee Road, Bhopal.According to him on 22-1-96 Padam Singh, Hari Singh, Matadeen, Kaushlendra, Inderveer, Vishwanath Singh, Ram Singh, Vinod Singh and Surendra Singh had stayed in his lodge.In the cross-examination the witness has clearly stated that on 22-1-99, he was not the manager of the lodge.He admitted that he was illiterate and was unable to say what was written in the said entry.A person who did not make the entry nor was able to prove the entry regarding stay of Surendra Singh in the lodge, would not be proper witness to prove that the accused Surendra Singh was at Bhopal on the date of the incident.D.W. 6 Vishwanath Singh had stated that alongwith accused Surendra Singh he had gone to Bhopal for their selection in CISF.If this was a correct fact, then the witness Vishwanath Singh or accused Surendra Singh could atleast file their interview called in support of their defence.They did not say that they were in possession of the interview calls.Assuming for a moment that they had lost their interview calls, then also they could call somebody from the department to show and prove that they did appear in the interview.Defence of these two witnesses does not inspire confidence.The defence is rejected.D.W. 7 Raghuveer and D.W. 9 Nathu Singh have simply stated that prior to the date of the incident for a period of about 1-2 months, accused Kiledar Singh was in village Bahera.D.W. 7 Raghuveer Singh simply said that for 1-2 months prior to the date of the incident the accused was residing in village Bahera.While D.W. 9 Nathu Singh has casually said that accused for last 3-4 years, prior to the date of the incident, was residing in village Bahera.The defence raised by Kiledar Singh that on the date of the incident he was at village Bahera is unreliable.D.W. 8 Ramswaroop and D.W. 12 Kalyan Singh have casually asserted that on the date of the incident, accused was at village Arjunpura.He also tried to assert that on 22-2-96 Surendra Singh had gone to Bhopal for seeing the interview of CISAF.This statement of D.W. 8 Ramswaroop runs contrary to the statement of Vishwanath Singh who had stated that he alongwith Surendra Singh had gone for interview, though he submitted that he had filed an affidavit in relation to Surendra Singh and also sent letters to the higher authorities.According to him, he received the information about the incident on 23-2-96 but did not make any complaint about the false implication for atleast 15-20 days.In the cross-examination he started asserting that he had gone to Bhopal with Surendra Singh but realising that he was likely to be confronted, he stated that he had gone upto Gwalior only and not beyond that.He also admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to where Surendra Singh had stayed, and he was making the statement on the information supplied to him by his brother Surendra Singh.At this stage, the fact cannot be lost sight of that Arjunpura is hardly at a distance of 15 kms.from village Baghade where the incident took place.The distance can be covered in a short time and even if accused Barelal was arrested at Arjunpura, the same is not going to provide any defence in favour of accused Barelal.D.W. 12 Kalyan Singh had casually stated that on 22-2-96 accused Barelal was present in village Arjunpura.On one side he was unable to give the date of birth of his children and the date of his marriage but he wants the Court to believe that he was certain and positive that on 22-2-96 accused Barelal was present at village Arjunpura.For the reasons stated above, we are unable to rely upon D.W. 8 Ram Swaroop and D.W. 1.2 Kalyan Singh.D.W. 10 J.P. Sharma is the Principal of Nevari School.According to him Bharat Singh was present on his duty between 1st Feb. to 22nd Feb. In support of his statement, he had produced Ex. D-18 containing the signatures of accused Bharat Singh.Village Baghade is only at a distance of 4 kms.from village Nevari.According to the witness a man can cover the distance from village Baghade to village Nevari within half an hour or 45 minutes.He has also admitted that the school was a private one.He has further admitted that the teachers do not come to the school at the fixed time but they come according to their convenience.His statements do not inspire confidence.The defence of alibi raised by Bharat Singh deserves to and is accordingly rejected.D.W. 11 Purshottam Saxena, a clerk of the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhind has been examined to prove that the report dated 22-2-96 was received in his office on 26-2-96 and he had placed the said report before the then Magistrate.The witness was unable to produce the copy of the first information report received by him.In the said matter the witness who lodged the F.I.R. met with injured persons, learnt about the details of the incident and lodged the first information report on phone.In the matter of Ram Singh v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 S.C. Weekly 2042, the Supreme Court has observed that where a telephone message of the cognizable offence was cryptic in nature and the officer-in-charge proceeded to the place of occurrence on the basis of such information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information which had been received by him on telephone shall be deemed to a F.I.R.. In the matter of State of M.P. v. Ramesh (supra), the Division Bench has held that a wireless message from another police station cannot be treated as a F.I.R.. In the matter of Ramesh (supra) Rojnamcha report was recorded on a wireless message which informed the police that some quarrel had taken place between the parties resulting in murder.The message further directed to summon the officer-in-charge of the police station on the spot.In view of the above referred judgments, if Ex. P-11 is seen, it simply says that one Baburam informed at the police station that gun firing was going on between the party of Ram Singh on one side and other party of Shanker Singh.It did not say that who was the aggressor, who was the injured or who died, how the incident started or what was the genesis.Ex. P-11 simply required the S.H.O. to proceed on the spot to inquire about the incident and its details.Sanha No. 550 records that after recording the Sanha No. 549 A.S.I., S.R. Sharma alongwith two Head Constables proceeded towards the scene of occurrence.Taking into consideration the legal provisions and the judgments referred above, we are unable to hold Ex. P-11 could be deemed to be the F.I.R.. Ex. P-5 is the Dehati Nalish which was recorded on the spot at 12.30 noon.The information was supplied by Ram Prakash Gurjar who had suffered injuries on the spot.The details as given in Ex. P-5 do provide the grounds to take cognizance of the offence and proceed further with the investigation.This report clearly stated that the accused persons armed with gun, lathi, Ballam, Barcha, Farsa opened the assault on the first informant and others.We are of the positive opinion that Ex. P-5 alone can be taken as the F.I.R. When somebody gives a cryptic information to the police about some happening without details of the facts and material particulars, then such an information shorn of facts cannot be treated as the first information report.We are unable to hold that Ex. P-5 is a concocted piece of evidence.So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant side had changed its stands in relation to number of the accused persons, would certainly have an important bearing in the matter.From the first information report and the other statements, it would clearly appear that the prosecution witnesses firstly asserted that all the accused persons came on the spot and opened the attack on the deceased and the prosecution witnesses.There are as many as 13 accused persons.During the course of the trial the prosecution witnesses started asserting that accused Shriram Singh, Sevaram Singh, Barelal Singh, Kiledar Singh and Preetam Singh had caused injuries to the deceased and the witnesses.None of the prosecution witnesses have said that apart from these five persons any other accused even touched the deceased or the witnesses.In the statements of P.W. 2 Ramprakash Singh, P.W. 3 Harveer Singh and P.W. 4 Kalyan Singh, it has clearly come that these five persons had taken active part in the incident and the others did not do anything.The witnesses did not say that these persons exhorted or did anything on the spot.True it is that each of the witness asserted that all the 13 accused persons went to the fields and in their presence the accused armed with the guns opened fire.On this evidence, it cannot be assumed that each of the accused who initially associated the other five had a common object to cause injuries or to cause death of the witnesses and the deceased.From the statements, it would clearly appear that the other eight persons were simply present on the spot.The possibility that these eight persons realising the gravity of the situation disassociated themselves from the other five cannot be absolutely ruled out.The witnesses do not say that these eight persons had surrounded them very closely.According to the witnesses, these persons were standing at a distance.From the statements of the witnesses, it does not appear that these eight persons shared any common object of causing any injury to the witnesses or cause death of the deceased.Simple presence of certain persons on the spot who have disassociated themselves would not make them liable with the help and assistance of Section 149, IPC.The evidence available on the record does not positively prove that accused Janak Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bharat Singh, Mahesh Singh, Badan Singh, Jabar Singh, Suresh Singh and Surendra Singh shared any common object or in furtherance of the common object came on the spot, formed an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to cause injuries to Ram Prakash Singh and Harveer Singh or cause death of Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh.According to him, when he was going towards his field, he saw accused Sevaram, Suresh, Mahesh and Badan Singh and also heard the sound of firing on which he immediately went to the police station.In the cross-examination though he suggested that he had seen the incident and informed the police that he has seen the incident but this statement of P.W. 9 Babu Singh cannot be relied upon because neither in his police statement recorded under Section 161 nor in the Rojnamcha report he had stated that he had seen the entire incident.From the statements of P.W. 9 Babu Singh it would clearly appear that after seeing certain persons on the field and after hearing the shooting sound he immediately went to the police station and reported the matter to the police.He gave a cryptic report to the police and did not give the complete details.Ex. P-5 was lodged by Ramprakash.Said Ramprakash had seen the incident wherein two of his uncle died and he himself had suffered number of injuries.According to P.W. 1 Dr. Rakesh Sharma, said Ramprakash had suffered as many as 18 injuries and all were caused by the fire arms.It is not expected of a person who had seen the ghastly incident and had suffered as many as 18 injuries to remember every detail and give a pictorial description of the incident.Even otherwise P.W. 3 Harveer Singh is a reliable witness and is supported by P.W. 2 Ramprakash Singh and P.W. 4 Kalyan SinghThe submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that as the cut crop was not seized, it would show that the genesis of the incident was not as was being suggested by the prosecution witnesses.x 1/2 cm.Scalp deep on his left parietal area.This injury undisputedly could not be caused by the fire arm.The nature of the injuries found on person of Wakeel Singh would clearly show that accused Preetam Singh and Barelal had also taken part in the incident.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that all the injuries were caused by 12 bore guns therefore, accused Shriram Singh cannot be convicted, cannot be accepted.From the medical report of Harveer Singh, it would appear that a bullet had passed through and through his shoulder.On opening the body of Vishambhar Singh the said doctor recovered head of the bullet from the para-vertebral region of deceased.On opening of the body of deceased Wakeel Singh, the doctor P.W. 1 Rakesh Sharma could recover the head of the bullet from the lungs of the deceased.The recovery of the bullets from the body of the deceased persons would clearly show that not only 12 bore guns but even the bullets were also fired from a rifle.The arguments of the defence that the complainant side was armed with fire arms and fired indiscreetly, therefore, the shot fired by them had hit their own people is a fanciful argument.The argument looses right of the fact that on one side none of the prosecution witnesses have suffered a single pellet or bullet injury while on the other side two persons from the side of the complainants lost their lives, the third one suffered as many as 18 pellet injuries and the fourth one also suffered the pellet injuries.If the complainant side was firing indiscreetly then atleast one pellet entry could be found on the person of any of the accused.From the statements of P.W. 6 Saligram Sharma, A.S.I., it would appear that under Ex. P-17, he had recovered six fired cartridges of 12 bore gun and three empty bullets.This fact would clearly show that atleast nine times or more, the gun were fired.If the defence of the accused is taken to be correct, then atleast out of nine shots some would have hit some accused somewhere.The absence of fire arm injuries on the person of the accused would clearly show that the suggestion made by them that the complainant party was firing indiscreetly is patently wrong.Accused Bahadur Singh had an injury of 4 cm.x 1/2 cm., scalp deep on the parietal region.This injury would ordinarily be not visible as the area is covered by the hair.The other two injuries are the bruises, Janak Singh also had a lacerated wound of 3 cm.x 1 cm., scalp deep on the left parietal region.He had yet another lacerated wound on the left elbow and had some scratches on the fingers and a lacerated wound of 2 cm.x 1/4 cm., obliquely placed on the right parietal region.Accused Koke Singh had a lacerated wound of 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.skin deep on the right occipital region and had some scratch marks.These injuries were simple in nature and could be caused either in a scuffle or because of a fall.It has not been suggested to the prosecution witnesses that either the deceased or the eye witnesses or the persons who came on the spot had caused these injuries to these persons.It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that Naresh Singh came on the spot after the deceased had fallen down and shot two fires in air.It has not been suggested to anybody that either Naresh Singh or others had opened indiscreet fire and caused injuries to their own party man.After giving our anxious consideration to the arguments and going through the entire record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against the accused Preetam Singh, Kiledar, Shriram Singh, Sevaram Singh and Barelal.The prosecution has also proved that each of these five persons had formed an unlawful assembly; atleast three members of the unlawful assembly were armed with fire arms and each of the person knew that there was a likelihood of using the fire arms.Each of the five accused went on the spot and they in fact meant business.In furtherance of the common object accused Preetam Singh started cutting crop and on deceased Wakeel Singh and Vishambhar Singh asking them to not to do so, accused Shriram Singh, Sevaram Singh opened fire, Preetam Singh and Barelal caused injuries to the deceased and, Kiledar after arrival of the interveners again opened fire.The prosecution has also proved that the members of the assembly knew that they were likely to cause death and were likely to cause grievous injuries.The Court below was certainly justified in convicting accused Preetam Singh, Kiledar, Shriram Singh, Sevaram Singh and Barelal under Sections 307/149 and 302/149, IPC.The trial Court was also justified in convicting accused Shriram Singh under Section 201, IPC and was also justified in convicting the other eight persons.The conviction recorded and the sentence award to accused Janak Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bharat Singh, Mahesh Singh, Badan Singh, Jabar Singh and Suresh Singh and Surendra Singh deserve to and are accordingly set aside.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the manner in which number of the persons armed with guns and other weapons entered in the field contrary to the order of injunction and opened indiscreet fire and fired repeatedly and caused number of two persons and also caused injuries to, two more persons, the present would be a rare of the rarest case where the trial Court justifiably awarded the death sentence.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances specially the facts that Somabai had sold the property to some of the accused and the accused had obtained an order of status quo in their favour had entered into the land and protecting their alleged title opened fire, we consider present to be not a rare of the rarest case worth awarding capital punishment to accused Shriram Singh and Sevaram Singh.Though the conviction of these two accused persons is maintained but they are awarded life imprisonment under Section 302/149, IPC.The conviction and sentence of all the other three accused namely, Barelal, Preetam Singh and Kiledar Singh under Section 302/149, IPC are maintained.Similarly conviction and sentences awarded to accused Shriram Singh and Sevaram Singh under Sections 148 and 307/149, IPC are also maintained.Similarly conviction and sentences awarded to accused Shriram under Section 201, IPC are also confirmed.The conviction and sentences of accused Preetam, Kiledar and Barelal under Section 302/149, IPC, under Section 307/149 and also under Section 148, IPC are maintained.The substantive jail sentences awarded to each of the accused shall run concurrently.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,525,083 |
According to the case of the prosecution, the applicants herein are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant who has registered the above said case against the applicants and other co-accused person being the son of the applicants herein and the husband of the complainant.At the very outset, it is clear that offence under Section 377/34 of the I.P.C. cannot be made applicable to the applicants herein as there is no allegation with regard to the said offence against the applicants.As regards the offence under Sections 498-A and 506, the allegation against them is omnibus in nature, which is a demand of Rs.15,00,000/- in Cash and one SUV vehicle.Accordingly, the application is allowed.Cc as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge AM.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,528,053 |
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.1. Heard on admission.2. Challenge in the present Government Appeal is to the common judgment and order dated 17.08.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No.1, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2011 (State Vs.Rustam & others), Sessions Trial No.289 of 2011 (State Vs.Rustam), Sessions Trial No.290 of 2011 (State Vs.Firoz), Sessions Trial No.291 of 2011 (State Vs.Hamid) and Sessions Trial No. 972 of 2012 (State Vs.Rustam & others), acquitting all the respondents of the offences under Sections 395, 397 & 412 of IPC, acquitting respondents Rustam, Firoz, Hamid under Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquitting the respondents Rustam, Sajid @ Mannu, Hamid, Gajay Singh of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.Brief facts of the case are that in the night intervening 09/10.09.2010, certain persons entered the premises of an Engineering College where construction work was going on, and after kidnapping some laborers, have taken about 300 shuttering plates, one generator set, three vibrators and about 50 tie-iron rods and one stabilizer in a truck.On the next morning i.e. on 10.09.2010, information of the said offence has been communicated by Suresh (PW-3) to the Secretary of the Society, namely, Shiv Singh (PW-1).At their instance, FIR (Ex.Ka-15) was registered against some unknown persons under Section 392 of IPC.Further case of the prosecution is that during checking of the vehicles, one Eicher Canter car was apprehended carrying looted articles and seven accused persons were found in the said vehicle.They were interrogated by the police and they confessed their offence.Based on their statement, seizure was effected and accordingly charge sheet was filed.While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against all the accused persons under Sections 395, 397, 412 of IPC, whereas separate charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against Rustam, Firoz and Hamid.Accused Rustum, Sajid, Abid and Gangu @ Gajay Singh were also separately tried under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses.Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.By the impugned judgment, trial Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges.Hence the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal.Even the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the vehicle in question i.e. Eicher Canter was used in the commission of offence.It has also failed to prove that any forged number plate was prepared and used in the commission of offence.In respect of seized weapon, no independent person has supported the prosecution case nor seized weapon was sent for ballistic report.Considering all these aspects of the case, trial court has acquitted the respondents of all the charges granting them benefit of doubt.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,529,567 |
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2020.09.02 10:33:21 +05'30'Subsequent order of the trial Court was directed to be filed earlier and it appears that there is a cross-case registered against the complainant party which is Crime No.113/2020 in which complainant has been suffered fracture.In the present case, a case under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act has been registered against the present appellant and other provisions of Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.The present appeal pertains to Crime No.112/2020 registered at Police Station-Ratangarh, District-Neemuch (MP).The complainant has been served notice in this matter.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,529,865 |
On 13/05/2018 co-accused Anoop Patel, cousin of applicant Abhishek Patel and co-accused Pradeep brother-in- law of Abhishek Patel came there and took her to co-accused Pradeep Chourey's house situated at Malkhedi, Hoshangabad, where co-accused Pradeep Chourey told her that they did not want any child and forced her to take contraceptive pill and applicant Abhishek Patel administered her one contraceptive pill.Thereafter, on 15/05/2018 she along with applicant Abhishek Patel came back to their rented house.On 18/05/2018 co-accused Pradeep again came to that house and threatened her to leave applicant Abhishek Patel or else he would kill her and her family members.After that, applicant Abhishek started assaulting her.On 21/05/2018 co-accused Anoop Patel came to her house and committed rape with her in-front of applicant Abhishek Patel and thereafter applicant Abhishek Patel also committed rape with her and also made a video of their act.Applicant Abhishek Patel and Anoop Patel also threatened to kill her and forcibly got a suicide note written.This is First bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Applicant Abhishek Patel @ Anshul was arrested on 29.09.2018 in Crime No.677/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 r/w Section 109, 498-A, 323, 201, 506, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution case on 30/06/2018 prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Hoshangabad Kotwali, District Hoshangabad averring that on 11/05/2018 she got married to applicant Abhishek Patel at Arya Samaj Mandir, Itarsi and thereafter she started living with him at Hoshangabad in a rented house.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 04/04/2019 11:02:29
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,533,880 |
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Rajendra, PS Krishna Nagar.HON'BLE MS.By the present petition, the Petitioners seek setting aside of the judgment dated 29th August, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners filed against the Judgment and order on sentence dated 4th July, 2009 and 6th July, 2009 respectively passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioners for offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC and directing them to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.Petitioner No. 1, who argued on behalf of all the Petitioners, stated that the doctor, who conducted the MLC, has not been examined.Thus, the Crl.In fact, on 22nd August, 1996 the Complainant had beaten the Petitioners and their MLCs got done at Swamy Dayanand Hospital(in short 'SDN Hospital') are already placed on record.The Complainant Mohit Gaur was not taken to the SDN hospital and police got fabricated MLC of Mohit Gaur prepared, on the basis of which, the Petitioners have been convicted.Instead of Dr. Rajender Gupta, one Dr. Rajiv Gupta was examined as PW10, who was not on duty on the relevant date, that is, 22nd August, 1996 as per the RTI reply received by the Petitioners.Thus on the basis of fabricated documents, the Petitioners have been convicted and the impugned judgments be thus set aside.P. 688/2009 Page 1 of 53. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that PW3 Mohit Gaur is an injured witness, who has been examined in the Court and has proved his complaint on the basis of which this FIR was registered.No suggestion of fabricated documents being prepared has been put to the witnesses and thus the same cannot be considered at this stage.The statement of PW3, the injured Complainant, is further corroborated by the MLC and the X-ray, Crl.P. 688/2009 Page 2 of 5 which shows a fracture in the nasal bone.Hence there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments and the petition be dismissed.P. 688/2009 Page 2 of 5I have heard Petitioner No. 1, learned APP for the State and perused the record.Briefly the case of the prosecution is that FIR No. 452/1996 under Sections 323/325/34 IPC was registered against the Petitioners on the complaint of PW3 Mohit Gaur.The Complainant alleged that on 22nd August, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. a rickshaw loaded with flour bag was parked in front of his house.When the Complainant asked the Petitioners to remove the rickshaw, they started abusing him, took him inside the house and started beating him.At that time, his neighbour PW4 Vijay Pal Singh, a TSR driver tried to settle the matter but he was also given beatings by the Petitioners.The police arrived at the scene and got the injured medically examined.Initially a kalandara under Section 107/151Cr.P.C. was prepared against both the parties.Pursuant to the opinion of doctor being received that the injuries to the Complainant/PW3 Mohit Gaur were grievous in nature, the abovementioned FIR was registered.The Complainant Mohit Gaur has been examined as PW3, who has reiterated his allegations made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR Crl.P. 688/2009 Page 3 of 5 was registered.Though that witness has been cross-examined however, nothing material has been elicited from this witness.This witness has denied that he was not taken to SDN hospital.He stated that he was taken to the SDN hospital and remained there till he was produced before the Court.He denied that PW4 Vijay Pal Singh was his own driver.PW4 Vijay Pal Singh has corroborated the version of PW3 Mohit Gaur.Though this witness in his cross-examination stated that he had not seen Mohit Gaur receive injuries however, he categorically stated that he had witnessed the accused persons giving beatings to him.The Investigating Officer SI Laxman Singh has been examined as PW5, however, no suggestion has been given to this witness that the MLCs filed by him were fabricated.PW7 Dr. R.K. Rawat, has appeared in the witness box and has exhibited the MLCs of Vijay Pal Singh and Mohit Gaur as Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B which bear his signature at point 'A'.Though the suggestion of preparing false MLC was given to this witness however, this witness denied the said suggestion.PW10 Dr. Rajiv Gupta, Radiologist, SDN Hospital has appeared who stated that he examined the X-ray plate of Mohit Gaur dated 26th August, 1996 and prepared the original report which shows fracture of nasal bone and thus he gave the Crl.P. 688/2009 Page 4 of 5 opinion as grievous at point 'B'.Despite cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in from these witnesses.P. 688/2009 Page 3 of 5P. 688/2009 Page 4 of 5In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the explanation given by the Petitioners is that forged MLCs in connivance of police officers and doctor have been prepared, on the basis of which the Petitioners have been implicated.It is further stated that the Petitioners were lifted from their shop and were pressurized by the Complainant and his father to withdraw as a witness against S.C. Joshi, who was the DDA engineer.However, no such suggestion of being lifted from the shop or being pressurized to withdraw as a witness has been made during the cross-examination of the witnesses.I have gone through the entire record since Petitioner No. 1 insisted to argue on behalf of all the Petitioners and did not accept taking amicus curiae.On a perusal of the record I find no infirmity in the impugned judgments and order on sentence, convicting and sentencing the petitioners herein.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 27, 2012 'vn' Crl.P. 688/2009 Page 5 of 5P. 688/2009 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
825,352 |
The facts giving rise to this reference may be stated briefly as follows :-The complainant Hausabai was in possession of a field Gat No. 285 of Mouje Loni Kd.She was at the material time present in the field.It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 13 committed trespass and also indulged in the act of taking away some properties.If was also alleged that the accused persons caused simple hurts to her, to her grandchildren and to her daughter-in-law, who were also present in the field.She alleged that she has seen the incident.The incident relates to acts which give rise to the offence under sections 395, 323 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Alleging these acts that accused Nos. 1 to 13 have committed, the Complainant filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur.On the same day, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and issued process as follows :
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,547,789 |
(The order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.) Petitioner, who is the sister of U.Jemi S/o.Udhthiriyamuthu, life convict (594), has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondents to treat her brother as having become eligible for premature release under G.O.Ms.1155, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 11.09.2008 and to consider him for premature release.Petitioner's brother, hereinafter referred to as the accused, is a life convict.He was tried in S.C.No.13 of 1998 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, for offences u/s.449, 461, 394 and 302 IPC.Under judgment dated 25.06.2001, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. for offence u/s.449 IPC, 2 years R.I. for offence u/s.461 IPC, 10 years R.I. for offence u/s.394 IPC and life imprisonment for offence u/s.302 IPC.The trial Court directed that the sentences run concurrently.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the Birth Centenary of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Peraringnar Annadurai, Government formulated a scheme for premature release of convicts.G.O.(Ms)No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, was issued in keeping therewith.It is submitted that as on 15.09.2008, the accused had undergone eight years of imprisonment and hence, he was entitled to release thereunder.However, he wrongly stands denied such relief.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor raises strong objections placing reliance on the counter filed by respondents and prays for dismissal of the petition.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.It is undisputed that the accused had, as on the date of G.O.(Ms)No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, suffered imprisonment for a period of eight years.The accused otherwise was eligible for premature release under G.O.(Ms)No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, but was considered ineligible since the authorities wrongly noted the offence for which he was convicted as 397 IPC instead of 394 IPC.The ineligibility criteria falls between offences u/s.396 and 400 IPC.An offence under section 394 IPC did not render an accused ineligible for premature release under the said Government Order.Holding that the accused, who has completed eight years of imprisonment as on 15.09.2008, falls within the first category wherein prisoners were directed to be released upon completion of actual imprisonment of seven years as on 15.09.2008 and that the accused suffers no disqualification as informed in G.O.(Ms)No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, this Court allows this petition.This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The accused U.Jemi S/o.Udhthiriyamuthu, life convict (C.P.No.594), confined at Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.[S.T.,J.] [C.T.S.,J.] 29.10.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesgmTo4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.S.TAMILVANAN,J.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.gm H.C.P.No.1009 of 201429.10.2015
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
825,543 |
ORDER Seth, J.The applicant, Bhopan, applies in revision against his conviction under Section 498, Penal Code.Once before this, Chhotey had filed a complaint against the applicant under the same Section 498, Penal Code and in that prosecution Bhopan was acquitted.Inspite of this previous history Mt. Bhagwati, who is a young woman of 25 years, has been unwilling to live with the complainant.The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case set up on his behalf was that be was not detaining Mt. Bhagwati.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, has found the charge proved against the applicant in the following words:I have examined the entire evidence in this case and it does not go beyond this that the complainant asked the applicant to send Mt. Bhagwati to him, but the applicant did not do so, and that Mt. Bhagwati had been found to be present in the applicant's kotha or she had been found sitting on the same charpoy as the applicant.Mt. Bhagwati was examined as a witness in the case and she stated that she did not want to go to Chhotey because he ill-treated her.
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,555 |
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls;Who steals my purse, steals trash; tis something, nothing;T was mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that flinches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.Laws of defamation aims at protecting the name and goodwill of a person in society.Backdrop facts giving rise to the present petitions are that in the year 2000 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against some employees of DDA who were allegedly involved in a housing allotment scam.Smt. Usha Ravichandran, Senior Personal Secretary to Commissioner (Personnel) was also accused of being involved in the scam.Thereafter, all the employees booked as accused by CBI including Smt. Usha Ravinchandran were suspended.(Usha Ravichandran was suspended on 16.11.2000)Subsequently, on 15.6.2001 suspension of Smt. Usha Ravichandran was revoked and she was reinstated.It is pertinent to note that Smt. Usha Ravichandran was the only suspended employee to be reinstated.On 4.5.2001, a news item appeared in the New Delhi edition of the newspaper Navbharat Times.English translation of said news item reads as under:Resentment amongst the employees of DDA over revocation of suspension of usha Ramchandran Senior Correspondent, New Delhi.There is a grave resentment among the employees of DDA over the news of revocation of suspension of Usha Ramachandran, Private Secretary to Commissioner (Personal) DDA who is accused of bungling to the tune of several crores in allotment of DDA flats.The CBI conducted raids in the month of November last year at the offices and residential premises of several officers of DDA including this woman employee.A huge amount of cash, document relating to DDA houses were recovered from the possession.CBI had registered a case against these officers after the recovery of this property.According to leaders of the employees it is improper to revoke the suspension of only one accused out of seven accused persons by the officers of DDA without obtaining permission from CBI.They alleged that this has been done at the behest of high level political recommendation.According to sources this file has been sent to Chief Vigilance Officer of DDA on Thursday evening after taking decision to revoke the suspension of Usha Ramchandran.Now orders in this regard have to be issued from there.According to sources that, being aware of the mysterious aspects of this matter all the officers of DDA are reluctant to take decision on revocation of suspension of Usha Ramchandran and of becoming a party to this decision, but they are being forced to do this by pressure of above.On 21.6.2001, a news item appeared in the daily edition of the newspaper Hindustan Times.Said news item reads as under:Scam-tainted DDA staffer gets her job back Aruna P. Sharma New Delhi, June 20 A DDA employee facing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in connection with housing scandal, which broke out last year, has been reinstated.The orders revoking suspension have been issued despite opposition from the CBI officials who were yet to complete their inquiry and finalise report.The personal secretary of Commissioner, Personnel, Usha Ravichandran is the only employee under investigation who has been reinstated while others continue to be under suspension.Her reinstatement has become a topic of discussion amongst the D.D.A. Officials.It is said that even after her suspension, Smt. Ravinchandran used to visit D.D.A's Head Office.She continued to visit the Authority's Head Office every after two/three days and she often used to sit in the room of the Commissioner (Personnel).They now feel that they will also be reinstated soon.For that some officers had been visiting Vikas Sadan from the very beginning.Amongst whom is also Assistant Director M.S. Ahuja.His visits are confirmed from the register of the Security personnel of D.D.A., wherein the number of the vehicle is entered.No privilege attaches to his position.That a search was conducted at her office and her residential premises.That she along with 7 others employees were suspended.JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.A person is identified by his name.His name may have no value to society but would be precious to the person concerned.A good name is better than great riches.Shakespeares Othello, Act III, Scene 3, 167:The CBI had raided the premises of Usha and a number of employees last November in connection with fraudulent allotment of flats and illegal refunds.She along with Ashok Kapoor, personal Secretary to the then Vice Chairman, Director Housing V.K. Shinged and others were suspended following raids in their offices and residential premises.A CBI official on condition of anonymity said there was pressure from the very beginning to reinstate Usha.The last request for giving her clean chit came about two to three months ago but after that we have not been approached, the official said.He added that there was evidence against Usha who was apparently a conduit for receiving payments for making favorable transfers and postings.One of the accused M.L.Ahuja, Assistant Director Social Welfare had confessed to the investigating officials that he made regular payments to Usha for transfers and postings.Payment slips in the name of Usha were also found at Ahuja's premises.Ahuja's son Mohit is a property dealer and was doing housing related work, the official added.The reinstatement of Usha, who is allegedly close to the Commissioner, Personnel, has sparked off Personnel, has sparked off resentment in DDA.Some of the employee union members said that there is little hope of tackling corruption if senior officials bend backwards to reinstate their favorites.They pointed out that the reinstatement had been made in spite of clear instructions from the Central Vigilance Commission that clearance is required from the agency on whose recommendation suspensions have been made; in this case the CBI.They also said that she had reported back to Personnel Department on rejoining and had proceeded on leave immediately.When contacted Vice Chairman of DDA, Prasanna Hota said that the reinstatement was made, as there was dire shortage of personal secretaries in DDA.It was made after consulting the CVC.Finance Member Laxman Rao had also gone into the merits of the case.Asked why only one suspended employee was reinstated, Mr. Hota said that if others made representation, their cases would also be considered.In the absence of evidence against Usha, she was reinstated, Vice Chairman said.She has, however, not been posted in Personnel or Housing departments, he pointed out.On 24.6.2001, a news item appeared in the New Delhi edition of the newspaper Dainik Jagran.English translation of said news item reads as under:HOUSING ALLOTMENT SCANDAL Many questions take birth with the reinstatement of Private Secretary Naveen Gautam New Delhi: 24th June.With the secret reinstatement of Private Secretary to the Commissioner (Personnel) of Delhi Development Authority, accused in Housing-Allotment Scandal, many questions are being raised.Whereas on the one hand, the Private Secretary's proceeding on leave just after taking charge after her reinstatement is a hot topic of discussion amongst the D.D.A. employees, on the other hand, other D.D.A. employees named as accused in the said Scandal have reason to rejoice.They hope that they would also be reinstated.On seeing the said charged officials, people have started guessing as what will be the result of the Enquiry of Housing Allotment Scandal.It is worth consideration that in connection with Houses Allotment Scandal, C.B.I. last year on 10th November, while making raid at Vikas Sadan, the Head Office of D.D.A., had registered cases against about a dozen persons, who were immediately suspended by the Authority.The suspended officers included the then Director (Housing) V.K. Singh, Personal Secretary to the Vice- Chairman, Ashok Kapur, Joint Commissioner (Housing-Self Financing Scheme) M.S.Sharma and also Usha Ravichandran, P.S. to the Commissioner (Personnel).Last week Usha Ravichandran was secretly reinstated.But for the time being she has proceeded on leave after taking charge.Her visits to Vikas Sadan even after suspension are also confirmed from her car number entered in the register of Security Guards.It is also a hot topic of discussion amongst the officials that Arvind Kumar, Commissioner (Personnel) has played a key role in the reinstatement of Smt. Chandran.The sources of the Authority, while raising fingers at her reinstatement, state that last year in the months of June-July an examination for promotion from L.D.Cs to the posts of U.D.Cs was held.The right of checking the said examination-papers was of the Director (Nazarat) Mr. Jha.But Usha Ravichandran was given authority by the Director to check the copies related to the exam, which was out of her power.C.B.I. during the raids had also seized the said copies and when the marks made thereon were got examined by Hand-Writing Expert, it became clear from the said examination report that the said marks were given by Smt. Ravichandran.Sources say that during the checking of copies of the said exam, lot of irregularities were made in which sixty L.D.Cs were promoted as U.D.Cs.It is a topic of discussion that when an enquiry is under process then what is the justification of her reinstatement It is more specific that her reinstatement has been made by Member (Finance) Laxman Rao, after clearance given by Joint Director (Vigilance) D.D.A, which is totally illegal.Whereas the right to give clearance is only vest with the Chief Vigilance Officer.Besides that, C.B.I., while raiding the Sheikh Sarai flat of Smt. Chandran, had made an adverse report regarding unauthorizedly constructed room on the roof-top and as well as the photographs thereof were taken.When the said matter is also still under enquiry, then what is the justification of reinstatement Not only the C.B.I. has also seized those documents, by which 32 Work Assistants (Electricity Division) were directly promoted as Junior Engineers.The sources disclose that the said matter is also under investigation.Well, whatever may be the result, but by the reinstatement of Usha Ravichandran, other suspended employees are very much hopeful.However, from the said action of reinstatement, the employees of D.D.A. have now started admitting that the enquiry of Housing Allotment Scandal will surely be effected.Pertaining to news item published in the Hindustan Times, complaint was filed against following three persons:Details of the said petitions are as follows:Principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that the said news items are neither defamatory nor have been made with reckless disregard for the truth.That the Accused No. 1 to 3 further published the false news item that one of the Accused Sh.M.L. Ahuja, Assistant Director, Staff Welfare, confessed to the investigating officials that he made regular payments to the complainant for transfer and posting, which is totally false and malicious....That Accused No. 1 to 3 had made further publication, that the complainant was reinstated as she was allegedly close to Commissioner (Personnel) is unfounded and parse defamatory.The reasoning advanced by the High Court was as follows:It was a publication of a report for the welfare of the society.A public institution like prison had to be maintained in rigid discipline; the rules did not permit mixing of male prisoners with female prisoners and yet the report said the prison authorities connived at such a thing, a matter which was bound to arouse resentment and condemnation.Further, there was good faith in the publication.The source on which the publishers acted was the proper source on which they were entitled to act and they did so with care and circumspection.The application made by the Government claiming privilege still awaited consideration.Petitioner No. 3 in Crl.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,693,906 |
In the alternative, he prays that his dismissal from service be converted to Discharge from service with effect from the date of his dismissal, with further direction to the respondents to release all his entitlements arising on account of Discharge.Alternatively, he also seeks a direction to convert his Dismissal to compulsory retirement/ removal from service from the date of his dismissal, with a direction to release all his pensionary/ retiral benefits arising out of W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 1 of 12 such discharge from service.W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 1 of 12His wife expired on 20.03.1998 due to consumption of a poisonous substance.Signed at New Delhi on this 30th Day of December 2014."The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was, and before us is, that upon grant of bail by the High Court on 02.05.2001 - at the time of admission of his appeal, he sought to re-join his duties while making a full and complete disclosure of the fact that he had been convicted under Section 304 B IPC by the Trial Court and that he had been granted bail by the High Court.The petitioner claimed that he was allowed to re-join his services and he continued to serve for the next about 14 years.In these circumstances, the dismissal of the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules was unjustified, since the respondents could have taken a lenient view of the matter and, instead of dismissing the petitioner, could have discharged him, which would have had the effect of the petitioner becoming entitled to receive pension and other pensionary benefits for the length of service rendered by him, which was in excess of 15 years.The petitioner claimed that upon his release on bail, he submitted his W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 3 of 12 hand written letter dated 04.05.2001 to Colonel G.S. Malhi, who acknowledged the same and permitted the petitioner to re-join and directed that he be taken on the strength of the Unit.W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 3 of 12In this regard, the petitioner placed before the Tribunal the letter dated 04.05.2001, claimed to have been written by him.He stated that since he was the Commanding Officer of the petitioner, he intimated all the facts to his superior officers higher in the chain, and ordered that the petitioner re-joins his duties and continues his job in the unit.The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has erroneously disbelieved the fact that the petitioner had sent the said communication dated 04.05.2001, even though the same was corroborated by the affidavit of Major General G.S. Malhi (retired).The factual background - duly established, was that the petitioner repeatedly demanded dowry in the form of a scooter from his wife and in-laws.The Trial Court also found that the petitioner was cruel towards his wife, since he did not take her with him to his place of posting.W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 11 of 12The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to assail the order dated 09.01.2020, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, whereby his original application assailing his dismissal from service vide order dated 30.12.2014 has been dismissed.The petitioner seeks a direction for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including back wages, seniority, continuity of service, promotions, etc. by quashing and setting aside his Dismissal vide order dated 30.12.2014, passed by the COAS.A case of dowry death was registered against the petitioner while he was serving as a Sepoy.On 22.02.2001, the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.He appealed against his conviction and sentence before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.On 02.05.2001, he was released on bail.He continued to serve with the Army for the next 14 years.On 29.08.2013, the High Court dismissed the petitioners criminal appeal and affirmed the sentence awarded to him.His appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court as well.Consequently, his conviction and sentence attained finality.He surrendered himself on 17.01.2014, while on leave.The said order of dismissal reads as follows:"ORDERS OF THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF FOR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE OF JC-235075A NAIB RISALDAR DILBAG SINGH OF THE PRESIDENTS BODY GUARDWHEREAS, JC-235075A Naib Risaldar Dilbag Singh of the Presidents Body Guard was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 22 Feb 2001 on charges under Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.The Appeal CRA No.245-SB of 2001 filed by W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 2 of 12 the Junior Commissioned Officer in Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court against his conviction has been dismissed on 29 Aug 2013 and he is undergoing the above said sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years at Central Jail, Amritsar.We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.So far as the petitioners submission that he had duly intimated the fact of his being convicted and sentenced, and of his release on bail by the High Court on 02.05.2001, is concerned, the respondents repeatedly claimed in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner had suppressed the said fact and not intimated to the respondents about his conviction.The Tribunal, while disbelieving the said plea of the petitioner, observed as follows:W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 4 of 12There is, however, a dispute as to whether the applicant informed the competent authorities regarding his conviction by the Trial Court and release on bail.Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant on Part II Order No 46 dated 16th May, 2001 which records:SORS wef 07th April, 1998".The Other Part II Order No 61 dt 25th May, 2001 records:-TORS wef 09th May 2001."Learned counsel also referred to a letter dated 04 th May, 2001 sent by him to the CO seeking permission to rejoin duty wherein he has given the details about the trial being faced by him and his conviction by the Sessions Court.In this letter he has also informed that he has been released on bail by Hon'ble High Court.In view of the foregoing, it is not firmly established as to whether the respondents were aware of the conviction of the applicant by the Sessions Court before he was allowed to rejoin the duties.Otherwise, there was no plausible reason to the respondents to issue apprehension roll on 28.02.2014 when applicant failed to join duties or to convene court of inquiry on 18.03.2014 or to declare him deserter, then sending non commissioned officer to Tarantaran Police Station, house of the applicant and Central Jail, Amritsar and thereafter initiating proceedings for his dismissal.At the most, Part II Order reveals that he was handed over to the Police for investigation and trial for an offence under section 304 B IPC and after his release on bail from civil custody on 02nd May, 2001, he was granted 7 days Casual Leave from 02nd May 2001 to 08th May 2001." (emphasis supplied)In any event, the Tribunal has proceeded to consider the issue whether the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority is liable to be converted into discharge, even if one were to assume that the petitioner had communicated to the respondents, the factum of his conviction under Section 304IPC, and merely on the ground that he had continued to render service for about 14 years even after his conviction.The Tribunal has observed as follows:W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 6 of 12"(i) Ex-Commodore Sukhjinder Singh Vs UOI (Judgment annexed with this written submission).In this case, a very serious crime of developing intimate relationship with a foreign lady, was committed and petitioner was dismissed from service.However, Pension was granted by this Honble Court holding pension is the property of employee and also observing that 14 dismissed officers were granted pension.(ii) Ex-Cdr Satyvir Singh Payal Vs UOI (Judgment annexed with this written submission).Even if he was discharged from service, in lieu of dismissal from service, the appellant cannot seek for any employment or re-employment into the Army.During this last leg of his career, he was charged with misappropriation and making false complaints against his superior officers.He was cashiered.These are agreed facts.......So he filed the present writ petition to compel the Government to pay him what is due by way of gratuity and pension.This was his property and could be taken away except by due process of law..............We direct the respondent to pay the said sum within three months today.Accordingly, we allow the writ petition with costs"."W.P.(C.) No.2475/2020 Page 10 of 12The sum and substance of evidence against the petitioner was that he forced his wife to consume a poisonous substance in the presence of other witnesses.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,699,988 |
The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:ii) He has further submitted that in the meanwhile, a false complaintdated 18.01.2013 was lodged by one Bharathi / 3rd respondent herein to theDirector General of Police, Chennai, which was in turn forwarded to the CBCIDfor further enquiry and investigation.The allegation in the complaint wasthat the petitioner married the said Bharathi in the year 2008 and thereafterdemanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and 150 sovereign of gold jewels as dowry.iii) It is submitted by the petitioner that all of a sudden, he wasremanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2013 in connection with the samecomplaint lodged by the said K.Bharathi, which was registered in Crime No.1of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 417, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act on the file of theInspector of Police, CBCID, Chennai.It is also submitted that in the criminal case, he wasarrested and enlarged on bail and the final report was also filed, which ispending before the learned Principal District Special and Sessions Judge,Chennai in S.C.No.230/2014iv) The submission of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent videproceedings in C.No.In the meanwhile, there was a training camp inChengalpet for selecting police personnels to participate in the trainingcamp.The petitioner and the 3rd respondent participated in the training Campat Tuticorin, Vallanadu in the year 2005, in which the petitioner haddeveloped love and affair with her.Thereafter, he demanded huge and amount and goldornaments for marrying her.ii) She has stated in the counter that since she was threatened by himand his brother continuously, she has given a complaint against him with theSecurity Branch, where he was working with a copy to the Commandant 7th Battalion, Pochampalli as also to All Women Police Station, Pulianthope andthe Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the2nd respondent from proceeding with the departmental proceedings inNa.E2/T.P.No.13/2014 pending disposal of the criminal case against thepetitioner in S.C.No.230 of 2014 on the file of the learned PrincipalDistrict Special and Sessions Judge, Madras.A2/7446/2014 dated 05.09.2014 appointed one Tmt.M.Vijayalakshmi, IPC, Commandant, TSP (b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955 and directed to conduct enquiry as against him.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter along with a petition tovacate the interim stay granted by this Court, stating as under:i) It is stated in the counter that the CBCID Police of Chennai, HeadQuarters registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2013 under Sections 417, 506(ii)IPC r/w 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,wherein the defacto complainant is one K.Bharathi, Police Constable.In hercomplaint, she alleged that the petitioner married her at Palani withoutproper form of marriage and when she insisted him to marry her, thepetitioner demanded money and jewels from her.Since the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, on receipt of a certificate to thateffect, the provisions of SC/ST Act was incorporated along with othercharges.Immediately, after registration of the case, the same was dulyintimated to the Commandant, TSP 1st Battalion, Trichy by S.P.CBCID, SZ, Chennai CMT, RC, Avadi.The criminalprosecution is conducted based upon Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, coupled with evidence, whereas the departmental enquiry is based onservice rules and other related laws.Pursuant to registration of a case bythe CBCID Police in Crime No.1 of 2013, he was placed under suspension as per the order made in C.No.In the criminal case, acharge sheet was also filed in S.C.No.230/2014 before XI Metropolitan Court,Saidapet, Chennai.Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition either bedismissed or the interim order vacated.The 3rd respondent / defacto complainant has filed a counter, inwhich she has stated as follows:i) She was appointed as Women Police Constable on 03.03.2003 and sent to training in Police.The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entireevidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant.The whole case of theprosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted.The learned Single Judge has also given liberty to therespondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings.What we have said is confined to the question at issue, viz., thedesirability or advisability of staying the disciplinary proceedings againstthe respondent pending the criminal proceeding/case against him.For the above reasons, it must be held that the Tribunal was inerror in staying the disciplinary proceedings pending the criminalproceedings against the respondent.The appeal is accordingly allowed withcosts.The order of the Tribunal is set aside.The disciplinary proceedingsagainst the respondent shall go on expeditiously without waiting for theresult of the criminal proceedings.The Court may for that purposeadjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment isnecessary.We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate withthe trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings.In case, however, the trial is not completedwithin the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the stepswhich the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedingsinitiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by theInquiry Officer concerned.The impugned orders shall in that case standvacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order.In the result, we allow these appeals but only in part and to theextent indicated above.The parties are left to bear their own costs.?Thus, it is also open to the respondents to issue charge sheet, if so advisedand complete the enquiry, if any commenced, as early as possible preferablywithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.No costs.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Trichy.The Commandant / Enquiry Officer, Tamil Nadu Special Police-I Battalion, Trichy.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,700,134 |
The second defendant in O.S.No. 159 of 2018 has come up with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off O.S.No.159 of 2018, a suit for bare injunction from the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.Short facts leading to the filing of the revision are as follows:-The first defendant in the suit namely, M/s. Colix Beverages Limited had borrowed monies from Industrial Development Bank of India.The said debt was assigned to Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund ( Securitisation company).The said company took proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and brought the movable properties for sale by public auction.When the purchaser namely, the petitioner herein took steps to remove the assets, it met with several proceedings by third parties, who 2/5http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(PD)No. 2193 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.13836 of 2018 claimed to have an order of attachment over the properties etc. Those proceedings were terminated by an order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1425 of 2018 dated 13.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner herein.I am informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP filed against the said order.While things stood thus, the petitioner was served with summon in O.S.No. 159 of 2018, suit for bare injunction restraining the petitioner from removing the machineries.This suit was laid by the first respondent Mr.Contending that he has a claim over the property, he sought for injunction restraining the petitioner herein from removing the machinery.Upon service of summons in the said suit, the petitioner has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.If at all, the plaintiff namely, the first respondent has got a money claim against the second respondent, it is for him to sue for recovery of money, he cannot seek an injunction decree restraining a third party, who is a purchaser in an auction conducted under a SARFAESI Act from removing the machinery.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2018 is struck off from the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.No costs.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,715,556 |
The learned counsel for revisionists prays for and is allowed to implead the complainant as one of the opposite parties in this revision.Heard learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Arjun Singh Kalhans, who has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and filed his Vakalatnama, which has been taken on record.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for revisionists that the revisionists were convicted by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda under Sections 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. The revisionists were acquitted for the offence under Section 352 but under Section 504 I.P.C. they were sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 250/- and for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. they were sentenced to merely 6 months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-.The revisionists preferred Appeal No. 21 of 2017 which was partly allowed and the fine was reduced.However, the sentence was maintained.Admit this revision.Order Date :- 9.11.2017 psd .Court No. - 18 C.M. Application No. 114389 of 2017 In re:Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1148 of 2017 Revisionist :- Kanti Patwa & Anr.Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.The revisionists has sought bail in N.C.R. No. 320/2014 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Gonda.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,718,719 |
Heard Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA and perused the record.By means of the present appeal the appellants are assailing the validity and veracity of the judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad in Special Session Trial No. 183 of 2011, arising out of case crime no. 103 of 2008, u/s 147, 308, 323, 336, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(!)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Pachokhra, District Firozabad by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced u/s 147 IPC for 1 year imprisonment each, u/s 308 IPC for five years imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment, u/s 323 IPC six months imprisonment each, u/s 336 IPC for two months imprisonment, u/s 504 IPC one year imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment, under Section 427 IPC for one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and and in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment, under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment have been awarded to the appellants.All the sentences will directed to run concurrently.Order sheet shows that this appeal has not been admitted as yet.Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.Summon the lower court record.Submission made by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants were on interim bail during trial and have not misused the liberty of bail granted to them and there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellants so they should not be entitled to be enlarged on bail.After having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the gravity of offence and sentence awarded and more particularly appellants on interim bail by the Sessions Judge himself, I find that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this appeal.List this appeal for hearing in due course.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,727,250 |
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J.(17.2.2020) Heard on admission.Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No.142 of 2006, acquitting the accused respondents of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 read with Section 149, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'SC/ST Act').Brief facts of the instant case are that on 7.7.2005, on the basis of written report lodged by Sudama Ram (PW-1), FIR Ex.Ka.4 was registered against the accused respondents under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. In the FIR, it is alleged that on that date, at about 8:00 am, accused persons carrying Club, Farsa, Ballam, Katta and Banduk came to his house; started abusing his family members and have also caused injuries to them.It is also alleged that the accused persons abused them in the name of their caste.While framing the charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused respondents under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 read with Section 149, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act.So as to hold accused-persons guilty, prosecution has examined five witnesses.Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents of all the offences.Hence, the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal of the accused respondents.Counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial Judge has erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondents.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.(PW-1) Sudama Ram, is the informant, though he has narrated the incident, but he has also stated that after sustaining one club injury, he fled away from the spot.He has further stated that the incident occurred at the doorstep, whereas (PW-2) Smt. Indrawati has stated that the incident occurred inside the house.That apart, according to the witnesses, number of persons came there carrying Club, Farsa, Ballam, Katta and Banduk, but as per medical report, only simple injury was sustained by (PW-2) Smt. Indrawati and (PW-3) Smt. Lalmuni.Yet another aspect of the case is that the present incident occurred on 7.7.2015, whereas on 2.7.2015, there was already a report by acquitted accused Triveni against the complainant party.Even ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act have not been proved by the prosecution as required under the law.From a bare perusal of the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the conclusion drawn by the trial Judge appears to be one of the probable conclusions and the same cannot be said to be perverse.While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
82,728,350 |
Heard on point of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.930/2017, which is an application for dispensing with filing of certified copy.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already filed certified copy of the order of the trial Court and the application has been rendered infructuous.As such, the application is dismissed being rendered infructuous.Also heard on I.A. No.801/2017, which is first application under Section 397 r/w Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant- Laxman Singh S/o Nena ji Bhilala.The present applicant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned counsel for the applicant submits that presently the applicant is under custody.During the trial and during the pendency of the appeal, he was on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After due consideration, this application is allowed.The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the applicant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27.06.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,689,797 |
On 13.05.2006, the Government of Tamil Nadu waived the agricultural loans obtained by the farmers, based on the decision of the Government,Uthamapalayam CO-Operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Bank Limited waived the agricultural loan obtained by the farmers, wherein PW2 is also one of the beneficiaries and the waiver certificate [ExP19] was handed over to PW2 by the appellant at his residence and PW2 asked the appellant to return the original documents, for which, the appellant instructed PW2 to meet him at his office on the next day.When PW2 had expressed his inability to pay the amount as demanded by the appellant, he reduced the demand to Rs.1,500/- and informed him that only on payment of the demanded amount, the appellant would send a letter for redemption of mortgage to the Sub Registrar.Then on 14.09.2006 at about 5.00pm, PW2 contacted the appellant over phone and the appellant informed him that only if he pays the sum of Rs.1,500/-, he would take steps for redemption of mortgage.(iii)As defacto complainant [PW2] was not interested in paying the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint [ExP2] before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Wing on 15.09.2006 at about 11.00am.The printed FIR is marked as [ExP3].He also informed his higher officials about the nature of the complaint.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014(iv)The TLO requested for some staff from the Taluk Office, Madurai and Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Madurai for organising a Trap and accordingly, one Laksmikanthan [PW3], Revenue Inspector and one Sirumanidoss, Assistant were present before him and the TLO gave a copy of the FIR [ExP3] for knowing the complaint and they also enquired the complainant about the complaint.The TLO obtained Rs.1,500/- [Rs.500 X 2 and Rs.100 X 5] from the complainant, which was meant for giving to the appellant and the serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar [ExP4] and they conducted a pre-trap demonstration in the presence of the complainant [PW2], official witnesses [PW3] and other Police parties.The said Rs.1,500/- coated with phenolphthalein powder was handed over to PW2 for giving to the appellant.The TLO instructed PW2 to meet the appellant at his office and if the appellant demands money, then only he should give the money.Then they all reached Uthamapalayam.(v)PW2 along with PW3 went to the office of the appellant around 5.30 pm on 15.09.2006, but the office was locked.When the appellant was contacted through hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 mobile number, he told PW2 to meet him on the next day with Rs.1,500/- as demanded.Therefore, they left the place and the TLO planned for a trap on the next day and except PW2, all others returned to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, Madurai and noted down the happenings [ExP5] and the same was attested by the witnesses including the TLO.(vi)Then on 16.09.2006, the team left for Uthamapalayam and en route, PW2 joined them around 10.10am and PW2 informed the TLO that the appellant called him in the morning over phone and demanded Rs.1,500/- and the appellant directed him to stay at a tea stall at the corner of the Uthamapalayam Bus stand and inform him.The TLO asked him to act according to the instructions of the appellant.Accordingly, PW2 along with PW3 official witness reached the said tea stall, namely, Devi tea stall and informed the appellant over phone.Around 10.25am the appellant also reached the said tea stall.PW2 complainant enquired about the cancellation of the mortgage deed, the appellant demanded the money, after his demand, PW2 handed over the phenolphthalein coated money of Rs.1,500/- to the appellant.The appellant received the same and placed ithttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 in his shirt pocket.The appellant called some body over phone and informed that PW2 would come on Monday and asked to cancel the mortgage.(vi) After receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant, PW2 gave the pre arranged signal to the TLO.On noticing the signal, the police party reached the tea stall and caught hold of the appellant.Thereafter, the appellant was taken to his office, where the Special Officer Jeyaseelan was present [PW4] and the hands of the appellant were subjected to the phenolphthalein test separately and the solution turned into pink in colour and the said solutions were recovered in separate bottles [MOs.4 & 5] and the same was attested by the appellant, witnesses and the TLO.(vii) On enquiry, the appellant, admitted before the TLO that he obtained Rs.1,500/- [MOs1 and 2] as bribe from PW2 and taken the money from his shirt pocket and the same tallied with the entrustment mahazar [ExP4].The appellant's shirt pocket was also subjected to phenolphthalein test through sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned into pink in colour and the same washttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 collected in a bottle [MO6] and from the appellant's pants pocket ExP11 [a paper containing the details of the loan was recovered, wherein the loan details of the appellant were mentioned.Then the TLO collected ExP12 the original waiver certificate.(iii) PW3 is the official witness, he speaks about the demand and acceptance of the money by the appellant from the PW2 at a tea stall near Uthamapalayam bus stand.He also prepared recovery mahazar [ExP7] and rough sketch [ExP13] and the same was attested by the appellant, the Special Officer and the TLO.He collected the exhibits and subsequently, he sent a search intimation for searching the house of the appellant to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni and on 16.09.2006 at 3.45pm to 4.45 pm and prepared a report and obtained the signatures of the appellant and submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni and the appellant was arrested and released on bail by the TLO.3.During trial On the side of the prosecution 12 witnesses were examined, 22 documents were marked and 6 material objects were produced.4.The available prosecution evidence are as follows:(i) PW1 is the then Special Officer (Additional charge) at A-1191 Uthamapalayam Co-Operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Bank Limited and he has accorded sanction [ExP1] for prosecuting the appellant.(ii) PW2 is the defacto complainant and he speaks about the demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant for redemption of mortgage and lodging of complaint[ExP2] before the Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014(iv) PW4 is the then Special Officer, Uthamapalayam Co-Operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Bank Limited, in whose presence the appellant admitted that he received the bribe money and the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the hands and shirt pocket of the appellant.(v) PW5 is the Secretary of the Uthamapalayam Co-Operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Bank Limited and he speaks about the waiver of the agricultural loan and he is the authority to sign in the waiver certificates.(vi)PW6 is a Document Writer, he speaks about the appellant contacting him over phone on 16.09.2006 and informing him to prepare cancellation deed.http://www.judis.nic.in 10/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014(viii)PW8 is the Scientific Assistant at Forensic Science Department, Chennai and she speaks about the presence of the phenolphthalein in MOs.4 to 6 and issuance of chemical analysis report [ExP8].(ix) PW9 is the then Head Clerk, who speaks about the request made for sending the MOs.4 to 6 for chemical analysis.(x)PW10 is the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Madurai Wing [TLO] and he speaks about the complaint lodged by PW2, registration of FIR, summoning of official witness, preparation of entrustment mahazar and the trap executed by him and the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and the arrest of the appellant in the presence of the official witness and Police party.(xi)PW11 is the investigation officer in this case, who conducted preliminary enquiry in this case.(xii)PW12 is the subsequent investigating officer in this case, who filed the final report.http://www.judis.nic.in 11/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 20145.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put before the appellant and the same was denied as false.6.The trial Court, after completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated supra.As against the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following points.(i) According to the defacto complainant, he met the appellant on 11.09.2006 and he returned all the original documents to PW2, who in turn, asked the appellant to cancel the mortgage deed, for which, the accused is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- and reduced the same to Rs.1,500/-.But in his statement PW2, has not mentioned the date of initial demand, contrarily, he has mentioned the demand in the complaint [ExP2].But, it is absolutely false.According to the prosecution, the original documents ExP20 to ExP22 were returned to PW2, wherein, the date mentioned below the signature has been stricken off.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the initial demand.(ii) It is stated that PW2 contacted the appellant on 14.09.2006 over phone.When, the original documents were returned to PW2 on 14.09.2006, there is no necessity for PW2, to contact the appellant on the same day.(iv)PW3 has deposed that he came to know about the appellant only when PW2 identified the accused to the Police.Therefore, from this it is clear that PW2 did not notice what had happened between PW2 and the accused till the Police arrived and hence, the reiterated demand on 16.09.2006 has not been proved by the prosecution.(v)PW4 and PW5 admitted in their evidence that the Secretary of the Bank alone has the power to give the letter and according to PW5, the loanee has to produce the cancellation deed before the bank and on such production, the Secretary would recommend for cancellation of the mortgage.This statement is also corroborated by PW6 document writer.Therefore, the motive or reward for receipt of the alleged bribe has not been established by the prosecution.http://www.judis.nic.in 14/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014(vi) In any event, only on proof of voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification the presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the PC Act. The voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification will arise only when the demand is proved.In this case the demand has not been proved.(vii) Mere recovery of money, in the absence of demand would not attract the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Supervisor after ensuring the loan amount are utilised properly, would recommend for disbursement remaining installments.In this case, the appellant being the Supervisor did not recommend for release of remaining amount.Therefore, PW2 had animosity against the appellant.The appellant had collected a sum of Rs.20,000/-, after the issuance of Government Order for waiving the loan on 13.05.2006.http://www.judis.nic.in 15/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 The Special Officer [PW4] categorically stated that till the communication is received from the Government, the bank would recover the loan amount.PW2 had also insisted the appellant to return the money.DW1 has stated that PW2 had quarrelled with the appellant at his office.Therefore, PW2 had animosity and strong motive against the appellant.The appellant had also explained that the money was inserted by PW2 in his shirt pocket.In the given circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be ignored.(xi)The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following judgments:PW2 defacto complainant in his complaint ExP1 stated that on 11.09.2006 at 11.30 am, he approached the accused officer for sending a letter for cancellation of mortgage deed.The accused officer demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/-, however, reduced it to Rs.1,500/-.Again on 14.09.2006 over phone, the appellant reiterated the demand.However, PW2 insisted to return the money to him.But, the accused officer had not returned the money, as no instructions were received by the Bank.Therefore, the PW2 defacto complainant had animosity against the accused officer.In order to take vengeance, the PW2 complainanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 has filed this false complaint against the accused officer.On 13.05.2006 the Government of Tamil Nadu waived the agricultural loans obtained by the farmers and PW2 was also covered under the Government Order.Accordingly, waiver certificate PW2 was also given to the PW2 by the appellant at his residence.To make recommendations for returning the original documents to PW2, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- and it was reduced to Rs.1500/- and the appellant also received the money and caught during the trap.http://www.judis.nic.in 19/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 201418.The complainant PW2 has clearly spoken about the demand made by appellant in his complaint [ExP2] and in his evidence.20.Insofar as the recovery is concerned, according to the evidence of TLO [ExP10] the appellant admitted the acceptance of bribe money of Rs.1500/- from the defacto complainant.Further the evidence of PW2 and PW3 also clear that the money was recovered from the appellant and on comparison, the serial numbers of tainted currencies were tallied with the entrustment mahazar [ExP4].Apart from this, in the recovery mahazar [ExP7] it was attested by the Special Officer [PW4], the TLO and the official witness including the appellant.In this case, the demand and acceptance were sufficiently proved by the prosecution and the tainted money as recorded in the entrustment mahazar [ExP10] was also recovered from the accused officer.The phenolphthalein test conducted on the both hands of the appellant/accused officer has also proved positive.27.The corruption has ruined the system.Despite implementation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, corruption has not been eradicated and it has become a common affair.Nobody is having the sense of fear to the prevailing Act. The higher officials must act as anhttp://www.judis.nic.in 25/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 example to their subordinates in discharge of their duties.If the higher officials themselves commit mistakes, then they loose their morale to question their subordinates.Ultimately, the system fails.30.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai in Spl.C.No.85 of 2011, dated 10.04.2014 is hereby confirmed.The bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and confine him to prison, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.20.12.2019 dsk Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No1.The Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Theni.3.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 27/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 20144.The Record Keeper (2 Copies), Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 28/29 CrlA(MD)No.145 of 2014 B.PUGALENDHI.J., dsk Pre delivery judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.145 of 2014 20.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 29/29
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,690,016 |
C.R.R. 139 of 2015 Mr. S. Chowdhury, Mr. Arnab Sinha ................. For the Petitioner.Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner.Let it be kept on record.Despite service, none appears for the opposite party.After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and after going through the revisional application and its annexures with special attention to the certified copy of the impugned written complaint/ F.I.R. , it appears that the F.I.R. / written complaint was lodged by the Prodhan of Chandi Gram Panchayat, Police Station - Bishnupur, District - 24 Parganas (South) before the I.C. of Bishnupur Police Station alleging continuation with some work without prior permission from Panchayat and on the basis of such complaint, the Bispnupur Police Station Case No. 1347 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014 under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code has been started.The accused is discharged from his bail bond.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of usual formalities.( Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J )
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
606,902 |
The brief factual matrix relevant for the disposal of the matter as disclosed in the writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Higher Grade Assistant in Badaun Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the L.I.C.), He was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1999 under Sections 302/307/504/506 I.P.C. and the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 Bareilly vide its judgment dated 8th June, 2004 convicted the petitioner awarding sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.The petitioner appealed vide Criminal Appeal No. 3126 of 2004 before this Court and while admitting criminal appeal, this Court vide order dated 10th June 2004 passed an interim order releasing the petitioner on bail and realisation of fine was also stayed.Proceeding on the basis of conviction, the respondents placed the petitioner under suspension on 16th June 2004 and a show cause notice was issued on 17th June 2004 as to why he may not be removed from service in pursuance to his conviction aforesaid.Consequently the petitioner again approached this Court and the order dated 10th June 2004 was further modified by this Court's order dated 14th July 2004 and the sentence was also stayed during the pendency of the appeal.Before dealing with the aforesaid two questions, it would be appropriate to deal with another incidental issue raised by Shri Satish Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the respondents.The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits of arrears of salary etc. in accordance with the Rules as applicable.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,692,610 |
Mr.Sourabh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.13243/2017, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and the sentence awarded to the appellant is only of 2 years, the application is allowed and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant and direct that he be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 12.12.2017 and on such other dates as may be directed in this regard.Call for the records of the trial Court and list immediately thereafter for orders on admission.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,695,891 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the repeat application of the applicant, whereas her previous application was dismissed on 29.01.2015 being withdrawn with the liberty that if she surrenders before the competent Court on or before 10.02.2015 then her application of regular bail shall be considered as early as possible.The applicant has an apprehension of her arrest relating to Crime No.98/2014 registered at Police Station Umri District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 224, 332, 333, 353, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old woman of 62 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against her.It was alleged against the co- accuse Rabude that he fired upon T.I. Satendra Singh.It is alleged that one S.I. Rajnarayan sustained fracture in the incident when police officers and officials were beaten by the co-accused persons.However, there is no allegation against the applicant that she assaulted any police officer and official with any weapon.That was act of male persons in the family of the applicant, whereas police party was trying to arrest Tahsildar Singh husband of the applicant.However, there was no role of the applicant to make any assault on the police party.Her common intention cannot be presumed with the co-accused persons.Consequently, offence under Sections 332, 333, 353, 307 and 324 of IPC are not made out against the applicant 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3245/2016 either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC, whereas offence under Sections 224 and 225 of IPC are bailable.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant, whereas she is suffering with various illness due to old age and it is not possible for her to remain in the custody.Under these changed circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.2 M.Cr.C. No. 3245/2016It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant Smt. Minnadevi shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
606,963 |
They took it for granted that the offence was made out.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,714,060 |
After hearing the learned counsels of both the sides, when this Court expressed that this Court is not inclined to grant the relief like suspension of substantive sentence and relief of bail, the counsels of the applicants submitted on instruction that they want to withdraw the proceedings filed for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail.So, those proceedings are disposed of as withdrawn.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:25:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:25:25 :::No. 2013/19 2This Court has carefully gone through the order made in favour of Nohid.Para No. 2 of the order shows that there was some confusion and this Court felt that Nohid had not filed application for bail before the learned Single Judge.He is convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w. 149 of IPC for causing injury to the deceased and also for causing the injury to the first informant.One injured died.In view of these circumstances, this Court is::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:25:25 ::: Cri.No. 2013/19 3 expressing that it is open to the State to file application for cancellation of the bail granted to Nohid.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:25:25 :::S.S. Shaikh.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2019 00:25:25 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,715,892 |
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of the final report in C.C.No.139 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, Puducherry and quash the same.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de- facto complainant and petitioner are very close relatives and there was a property dispute and suit is also pending before the District Munsif Court, Gingee.Therefore, due to previous enmity, a false complaint had been given with foisted story.Therefore, the allegation of the de-facto complainant visited the residence of the petitioners to enquire about the whereabouts of the said Ramya would show that the complaint is nothing but an unadulterated lie and had been filed only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for quashing the final report.3.The learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the case has been registered in Crimehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 No.198 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 of IPC.They completed the charges and enquiry and filed a final report on 10.01.2017 and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.139 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Puducherry for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 of IPC.There are specific averments as against the petitioners.They have recorded 161 statements from seven witnesses.There are materials to connect the petitioners with charges.Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the quash petition.4.Heard Mr.Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.5.It is seen that there are totally three accused, the petitioners were arrayed as A1 to A3 and the trial Court have taken cognizance under Sections 324, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 of IPC.It is seen from the statement recorded in 161(3) of Cr.P.C. There are specific over tact ashttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 against all the petitioners and there are materials to connect the petitioners with the charges.Therefore, at this stage this Court cannot quash the entire proceedings.Since, all the points raised by the petitioners had to be established before the trial Court.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the final report and the petitioners are at liberty to raise the points during the trial.5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.26.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rna/saihttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 To1.The Additional District Court, Puducherry.2.The Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet P.S., Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J rna Crl.O.P.No.29878 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2990, 2992 of 2019 26.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
607,180 |
It is alleged that on 3-1-1985 at about 9.00 A.M., the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set fire to her.The deceased is alleged to have been pushed inside the room and locked from outside.The deceased started crying for help loudly and her screams attracted attention of neighbourers, who assembled at the place for help.Husband of the deceased was not present in the house.The appellant's husband Santosh Singh, however, got the door opened and thereafter, both the appellant and her husband tried to put off the fire.The deceased was, however severely burnt and was rushed to D. K. Hospital, where she was found to have 95% burns.Her dying declaration (Ex. P/16) was recorded by Komal Singh, ADN (PW 7) at 12.05 P.M. on 3-1-1985 itself, where the deceased stated that the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and lighted the fire, resulting in burn injuries.JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, J.The appellant, Smt. Surjeet Kaur, feels aggrieved by her conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment by judgment dated 2nd April, 1986 passed by Shri D. P. Verma, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1985 and challenges legality and validity thereof in this appeal filed under Section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code.The appellant is alleged to have caused death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, wife of Gurdeep Singh, her daughter-in-law on 3rd January, 1985 by pouring kerosene oil on her body and lighting fire.Prosecution alleges that the deceased was married to appellant's son on 25-2-1984 and lived with the appellant in the same house at Housing Board Colony, Birgaon, Raipur.It is also alleged that the appellant used to ill-treat the deceased and demand dowry.The deceased succumbed to injuries on the night between 7th and 8th January, 1985 at the hospital.Dr. D. C. Jain (PW 2) performed autopsy of the dead body and opined that death was caused due to burn injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The appellant and her minor daughter Nirmal Kaur were thereafter charged under Section 302 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and sent for trial.Nirmal Kaur being a juvenile is being tried before the Juvenile Court.The appellant denied having committed any offence.She, however, admitted that deceased suffered burn injuries and died as a result thereof.She however, submitted that the deceased, in order to pressurise her and the family to remake gold bangles for her, had sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and put fire.She could not, however, manage the fire and suffered severe burns.Her specific defence is that her husband and son are engaged in business.In order to restart the business, her two gold bangles were sold much against her wish.She wanted the family to remake two gold bangles for her before Lodhi festival and in order to put pressure on them, followed the aforesaid method.As regards dying declaration (Ex. P/16), it is submitted that it is not the statement of the deceased and is a concoction and her real statement recorded earlier by the police has been withheld.It is also the appellant's case that the deceased having burnt her thumbs, could not have put her thumb-impression on the dying declaration.The learned ASJ relying on evidence of Komal Singh, ADM (PW 7) held that the dying declaration (P-7) was the true version of the deceased and had her thumb impression.The learned Judge also held that the same was recorded before any one could meet the deceased or tutor her.The learned ASJ also held that since it did not allege anything against Santosh Singh (DW 1), the father-in-law, it was honest.Evidence of Dr. Chandrakar (PW 8) did not, according to learned ASJ, establish that the dying declaration was suspicious or that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give the statement.The learned ASJ also held the defence unreliable and wholly unjustified and rejected the same.The learned Judge, therefore, held that offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was established beyond reasonable doubt.The learned Judge, however, held that the dying declaration could not be used to establish demand of dowry and consequent cruelty as it was outside the purview of Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act. The other evidence, in this behalf, was not of the requisite quality.The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.In his cross-examination, Dr. Chandrakar has further stated that "when I examined the patient, then I found that she was not in a state of shock." (para 9).Even the A.D.M., Komalsingh (PW 7) has stated on oath that the deceased was fit to give her statement and doctor was present throughout her statement.It would, therefore, appear that the deceased was in a fit physical and mental condition to give her statement.The Statement (Ex. P/16) clearly alleges that the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and lighted fire and thereafter pushed her inside the room.The incident has taken place at about 9.00 A.M. and the deceased was brought to the hospital at 11.00 A.M.. The dying declaration was recorded at 12.05 P.M. indicating that it was recorded without any delay and with utmost promptness.No relation of the deceased is shown to have been present with her at the time of recording of the dying declaration or immediately before it.Indeed her mother Minder Kaur (PW 16) reached the hospital in the night.This witness had reached the hospital at 9.00 P.M. on 3-1-1985 (see para 6 of her evidence), i.e., about 9 hours after recording of dying declaration at 12.05 PM.Admittedly, she was given medical treatment.The witness has emphatically denied such a suggestion.This interpretation is said to be based on the evidence of Narendra Singh (PW 3), who had reached the spot immediately and taken photographs.The witness has in para 5 of his statement stated that a glass bottle was found outside the room and was smelling kerosene oil.In cross-examination, he had admitted that the bottle was outside the room.Serious arguments were made about portions marked 'A-A' and 'B-B' in document (Ex. P/2), the seizure memo.The document is said to be originally written as indicating that the said bottle was inside the room, but subsequently, it was corrected to mean that it was seized from outside.Even if it was to be accepted that originally the bottle was seized from inside the room, it will not help the appellant.It will only support the prosecution case, which is, that the entire incident had taken place inside the room.The change in Ex. P/12 would, therefore, provide the basis for argument of the learned counsel and for that reason be treated to be an act in her favour.But, that by itself is not enough to hold that the kerosene in the bottle was used for causing injuries on the deceased.The dying declaration does not state that the kerosene oil was sprinkled outside the room and thereafter the deceased was pushed inside the room.Other witnesses, namely Jagtarsingh (PW 4), the brother of the deceased, who met the deceased on 4-1-1984 at about 12.00 noon, has clearly and specifically stated that the incident had taken place inside the room.Smt. Paramjeet (PW 15), who had met the deceased on the night of the incident has also stated that the whole incident had taken place inside the room (Para 7).In reply to a specific question, she categorically stated that she was put to fire inside the room.Smt. Minder Kaur (PW 16), the mother of the deceased has also deposed that the incident had taken place, when she was called inside the room and went in there (Para 3).She specifically denied the suggestion that she was put on fire outside and thereafter pushed into the room (para 7).Her statement in Ex. D/5 does not specifically mention that kerosene oil was poured on her outside the room and she was pushed after she had been put on fire.Under the circumstances, no prosecution witness justifies the aforesaid interpretation.Even the appellant in her written statement does not say that she saw the deceased burning outside the room.She has, on the contrary, stated that she saw the deceased burning inside the room and pushed her out on the "ANGAAN" and tried to extinguish the fire.Santosh Singh (DW 1) has also stated that when on hearing shouts of the deceased, he went towards her room.He saw his wife pushing the door open.Thereafter, both of them entered into the room and tried to extinguish the fire.This should not leave any doubt in the mind of anyone that the deceased was burning inside the room.It is nobody's suggestion that the incident had taken place outside in the 'ANGAAN".Under the circumstances, the criticism that it does not contain the true version of the deceased cannot be accepted.This would necessarily involve consideration of defence.The appellant has in her examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stated that the deceased was insisting that if her gold bangles were not remade, she would not participate in the Lodhi festival and in order to pressurise the appellant and her husband, she lit fire to herself.There was thus 10 days' gap between the incident and the festival, indicating that there was no urgency to adopt such a dangerous course of action.Then, if the deceased had intended to pressurise the appellant and the members of the family, she would not put herself to fire in a bolted room.If the purpose was to pressurise the family members, such a course should normally have been attempted in the presence of all concerned.Admittedly, the husband of the deceased was not present in the house.The father-in-law, Santosh Singh (DW 1) was also not on the spot.The appellant claims to be with the father-in-law, at the relevant point of time.It is difficult to believe that the deceased, who was married only about 10 months before and had no complaint against her husband, would indulge in an act like this, by closing herself into a room.Then, the dying declaration (Ex. P/16) mentions that the appellant, after putting fire to her, closed the room and opened only when she started shouting loudly.The appellant has stated nothing about the door in her written statement, but appellant's husband Santosh Singh (DW 1) has in para 4 of his evidence, stated that he heard the shouts of his daughter-in-law and rushed to that spot.The appellant also went towards that.According to him, "MERI AURAT NE DHAKKA MAARKAR KAMRE KA DARWAAJAA KHOLA".Now, if the door was really open, no push should have been necessary.If the door was locked from inside, the push would not have made any difference.This evidence, therefore, provides justification to the statement in the dying declaration that the door was closed from outside.There appears to be no justification for such an inference.Statement of Smt. Nirmala Bai (PW 9), as aforesaid, has come at the fag-end of her cross-examination.In her examination-in-Chief, she did not say that the deceased was questioned by anyone.In cross- examination, she first stated that the deceased did not give any reply.It is only at the fag-end of her cross-examination that she volunteered the said statement.Earlier, she had stated that several persons asked the deceased questions, but she did not give any reply.In the context of this statement, it is difficult to attach any significance to the statement relied upon by the learned counsel.Ram Murthy Naidu (DW 2) has stated that several persons, who had assembled on the spot were asking as to how she got burnt and the deceased replied that she had committed a mistake.Evidence of this witness is contradicted by Smt. Nirmala Bai (PW 9), who has stated that she did not give any reply.Even if the statement was accepted as having been made by the deceased, it would not mean that the deceased had put fire to herself.Suffice it to say that their evidence further justifies the conclusion that it was the appellant, who is responsible for the death of the deceased.While parting with this case, this Court, cannot, but observe that bride burning is becoming fashionable in our modern society, and has, therefore, to be taken serious note of.In the instant case, the deceased was married to the appellant's son only about 10 months before.The relationship between the deceased and her husband was cordial.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,743,373 |
(2) The appellant Harish J. Mal is a young man of 26 years In 1976 he was committed to the court of sessions to stand trial on a charge of murder under section 302 Indian Penal Code .At that time he was 22 years of age The charge was that on 28-5-1976 he had committed the murder of his aunt, Mrs. Micle Violet Law.He was also charged for committing theft from her dwelling house under s6c.In the presence of the appellant he told Mrs. Law that he will be going to Bulandshahar in connection with his lands on 28th of that month.(7) Before 28th Mrs. Shashi Wadhwa visited Mrs. Law.From the evilence it appears that Mrs. Law was attached to Shashi.She had brought her up as a little child because her mother was paralytic.She had educated her and then arranged for her marriage.Shashi was living in Shahdara with her husband.She had a little daughter who was living with Mrs. Law off and on Mrs. Law was devoted to the child.On 27th Shashi came and took away the child because she was unwell.(8) On 28th morning at about 6 a.m. Edward Gardner left for Bulandshahar.Mrs. Law remained in the house.At 11 a.m. she was seen washing her clothes by a neighbour, Mrs. Smith.Jai Devi, the sweepress, came to sweep her bathroom.At about 10 a.m. Mrs. Kusum Kapoor came to enquire about Edward.She is Edward's sister's daughter.Mrs. Law told her that he had gone to Bulundshahar.A little later William Gardner arrived to enquire about Edward.William is the brother of Edward Gardner.Both these visitors remained with Mrs. Law till about 11.30 a.m. and then they left her.They saw the appellant present in the house.He remained there even after they had left.Mrs. Law introduced the appellant to them as her brother's son.(9) Edward Gardner came back from Bulandshahar as about 5 in the evening.He found the appartment locked.He enquired from the neighbours if Mrs. Law had left the key for him.The neighbours told him that Mrs. Law had not left the key.Edward Gardner had his dinner outside in a hotel.He came back to the apartment at about 9 p.m. He found it still locked.He went to the roof and slept there in the night.In the morning he came and found the door locked as before.At about 7 a.m. he left for Shahdara.He went to Shashi's house.He enquired from her if Mrs. Law had visited her.She answered in the negative.He then asked her to give the key of the apartment.Shashi used to have one key with her so that she could open the apartment and go to Mrs. Law's house at any time.The key was given to Edward.On way he went to the clime in Regarpura where Mrs. Law worked to enquire from her fellow worker.Raj Rani, if Mrs. Law bad visited the cleric.Raj Rani replied in the negative.(10) From there he went straight to the apartment at 11 a.m. and opened it.On opening he saw Mrs. Law lying dead with half body on the plang (bed) and half on the cot.A rope was tied around her neck.Her eyes were bulging out.Her tongue was protruding.He pushed to the police station and lodged a report at about 12.50 in the afternoon.In the Fir he named the appellant because be suspected him of murder.JUDGMENT Avadhbehari Rohatgi, J.(1) On adifference of opinion between two judges of this Court R. N. Aggrawal and D. R. Khanna JJ.this appeal has come to me for my opinion under section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Aggarwal J. dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code and section 380 Ipc, Khanna J. allowed the appeal.He set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.Now as a third judge I have to give.my opinion on the appeal.380 Indian Penal Code .The Additional Sessions Judge tried him.He found him guilty on both counts.He sentenced him to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder.On the charge under section 380 he sentenced him to Ri for 3 years and' a fine of Rs. 1500.00 and in default Rl for six months.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. .(3) From his conviction and sentence the- appellant appealed to this court.The appeal was heard by Aggaiwal and Khanna JJ.They differed, as I have said.One was for dismissing the appeal.The other was for allowing the appeal.(4) The evidence in this case and the arguments of counsel have been discussed in detail in the two judgments of the learned judges.The prosecution case as unfolded in.the evidence is this, Mrs. Micle Voilet Law was an old woman.She was 66 years of age at the time of her death.She was living in Christian Colony in a separate apartment with the informant Edward Gardner, a man of 67 years of age.Both.of them were in the evening of their lives.(5) Mrs. Law was the wife of Mr. M.V Law.She was living separately from her husband.There was no legal divorce between them.But they were living apart.The husband Mr. Law appeared in the witness box as adefense witness.He said that since Mrs. Law was having illicit relations with Edward Gardner he had left living with her.Edward Gardner admitted that he and Mrs. Law were living as husband and wife.In public he was posing as the brother-in-law of Mrs. Law.(6) Chronologically stated the facts are as follows.On 25-5-1976 the appellant visited Mrs. Law in her apartment.He is Mrs. Law's brother's son.Edward Gardner was present on that occasion.On this information, the police arrested the appellant.According to toe appellant he was arrested at Agra.But nothing turns on it.On 2nd June the appellant made a disclosure statement to the police.this led to the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased.Her bag was recovered from Ajmal Khan Park in Delhi.Her ornaments were recovered from a jeweller at Agra on 3rd June.(11) Aggarwal J. believed the testimony of prosecution witnesses and in particular the testimony of Mrs. Kusum Kapoor and William who deposed that the deceased was seen last with the appellant.He also believed the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of a lady's bag and the ornaments.On the evidence of prosecution witnesses he was satisfied that the case against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Khanna J. differed from him.He held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt, of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Point by point he enumerated as many as 22 discrepancies in the prosecution case.Presence of the appellant :(12) There are two questions in this appeal.One is about the deceased being seen last with the appellant.The other is about the recoveries.Mrs. Kusum Kapoor and William Gardner on hearing of the murder of Mrs. Law went to the police station and there their statements were recorded.They appeared in court to give evidence.They remained with the deceased for an hour or so.They were introduced to the appellant by the deceased.In my opinion there is no reason to doubt the testimony of these two witnesses.The trial judge accepted their testimony.Aggarwal J. found them trustworthy.Khanna J. disbelieved them.He said this : "THEYhave of course no motive to depose against the appellant but it cannot beruled out that they were interested to product Edward Gardner."(13) This is not a correct view.The weight of evidence is against this view.The underlying assumption here is that Edward Gardner may have committed murder.There is no foundation for this supposition.It is true that Mrs. Kusum Kapoor was the sister's daughter of Edward Gardner.William Gardner was his brother, this also is true.The defense story is that Edward Gardner committed the murder because he wanted to grab the property of Mrs. Law.Law had purchased three plots.One in the name of her brother George.Mull, the second in the name of the other brother Franklin Mull, and third in her own name.Mrs. Law's husband, Mr. Law, and her two brothers, George and Franklin, as well as the appellant, gave evidence that Edward Gardner came to them on 28th May 1976 in the evening and enquired as to who will inherit the property in the event of Mrs. Law's death.The answer given to him was that the husband would inherit because he was alive and there was no divorce and if he does not claim the brothers will claim, the .property.On this answer Edward got engry and said that he will inherit and not the husband or the brothers.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .said that Edward committed the murder of Mrs. Law presumably after he returned from her husband's and the brothers' houses and that Edward had brought a false case against him.He said in liis statement: "ALLthe witnesses are interested and related to Shashi Wadhwa and Edward Gardner.They wanted to protect Edward Gardner who had been visiting Mrs-.M.V. Law under suspicious circumstances.Edward Gardner is a person who is responsible for death of Mrs. M.V. Law arid other witnesses have protected him being related to him Girja Shankar and Public Witness Sushil Kumar have been procured by the police and Shashi Wadhwa in order to plant the, ornaments on me."(14) I have no doubt that the defense story is ''a cooked up version", as Aggarwal J. calls it.It is riot only cooked up, it is fantastic on the face of it.Edward is nowhere in the line of inheritance.Nor in the normal course of events would he, come back to Mrs. Law's apartment and take the trouble of opening it.He would not have rushed to the police to make the report on 29th of the murder.In my opinion the defense is meritless and, the accused's story is meretricious.Once we come to the conclusion that Edward is not be guilty man, there is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of Mrs. Kusupi Kapoor and William Gardner.They have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant..There is no suggestion that these witnesses met Edward before they went to.make their statetements to the police.After hearing the news of death of Mrs. Law they went to the police station directly.Their evidence shows that the appellant was present in the house of Mrs. Law when these two witnesses left her round about 11.30 a.m. (15) The testimony of these witnesses was criticised on two grounds.This discrepancy is of course there.But it appears to be due to lapse of memory.(16) Secondly, it was said that the sweepress Jai Devi did not see them.The sweepress came to sweep the bath room.It is possible that those who were sitting in the room she did not notice.(17) Two further points were made on the testimony of these witnesses.It was said by appellant's counsel that the evidence of Mrs. Kusum Kapoor is not worth relying upon because admittedly she was a teacher and she used to teach students from 8 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. every day.This would make her presence doubtful, counsel said.She was not a regular teacher.Sometimes she taught, sometimes not.It was then said that Mrs. Kasum and William saw the appellant for the first time on 28th May 1976 and there ought to have been an identification parade in order to establish the identity of the appellant.It was not difficult for Mrs. Kusum Kapoor and William Gardner to remember and to recollect that they were introduced to the appellant by Mrs. Law and they were told that he was her brother's son.She was strangled to death.She was old.Against youth she could not put up resistence.The evidence establishes that the appellant was present on 28th May 1976 with Mrs. Law and he was there at 11.30 a.m. when Mrs. Kusum Kapoor and William Gardner left her.Mrs. Law was alone.The appellant took the advantage of the opportunity to commit the crime.(20) On 2nd June, 1976 the appellant made a disclosure statement.This led to recovery of a lady's bag at Ajmal Khan Park on 2nd June itself.The lady's bag contained a key and urine report of Mrs. Law issued by Dr. M.K. Garg.This shows that the bag belonged to the deceased in which she kept papers and keys.Edward said that there was a bunch of keys and a green card in the bag.This recovery is .criticised on the ground that the seizure memo does not support Edward.This is a minor discrepancy and not of much consequence in view of the solid evidence against the appellant in the shape of recovery of ornaments at Agra.(21) On 3rd June the police took the appellant to Agra because he said that he could get the ornaments recovered from the jeweller to whom he had sold them.There is positive evidence of Girja Shankar that the appellant brought a chain, a kara and three goldrings and sold them to him.Girja Shankar paid Rs. 11401- to the appellant.The appellant executed a receipt in his own hand (Public Witness 4/A).Criminal Procedure Code .This recovery connects the appellant with the crime.. This evidence establishes the appellant's quilt.In my opinion the recovery of the bag and the ornaments is decisive of' the guilt of the accused.It is determinative of the fact I hat the appellant murdered Mrs. Law and took away her ornaments and sold them at Agra where his father lives.(22) This is strong evidence against the man.. There is iio worthwhile criticism of the recovery of the bag and gold orna- ments except that the appellant says that the ornaments were planted on him.The appellant's counsel said that this recovery is against the facts proved in the prosecut'on evidence, Firstly.she drew my attention to the Fir where Edward had said that Mrs. Law was wearing rolled gold bangles which he found missing.In the Fir he has not said anything about the gold chain, kara and the rings.Secondly, it was said that in a plan prepared at his instance in July 1976 it is shown that these ornaments were stolen from a box and were not remove from the body as is the evidence.Edward explained in his evidence that he was nor in a fit state of mind at the time he made the report to the poirce and therefore did not mention the disappearance of these ornaments.In some situations the straight line of truth is diverted by the infuences of emotion or of hysteria or of alarm or of remorse.A tribunal of fact should understand this.The evidence of Edward can not be rejected on this ground.(23) There is positive evidence that Mrs, Law was wearing a gold chain, three rings and a kara on the 27th.Shashi says that she saw Mrs. Law wearing these ornaments on 27th May when she went to her to take the child.Edward says that when he left in the morning of 28th she was wearing these ornaments.that these ornaments belonged to Mrs. Law has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.There was an identifiction parade of the ornaments conducted by Mr. Dharam Raj Singh, Magis- trate.Shashi Wadhwa rightly identified the ornaments.This cstablishies that the ornaments which were recovered at the ins- tance of the appellant belonged to the deceased and that she was wearing 'them at the time of murder.The probative value of this positive identification is great.(24) The evidence of the jeweller Girja Shankar and his neighbour Sushil Kumar was severely criticised by detence counsel.If was said that Girja Shankar says that he was called from his residence by the police while Sushil says that he was present at .the shop when the police arrived .with the appellant on 3rd June.graduate and a sales tax practitioner.Death was due to asphlyxia resulting from strangulation with the rope.He found legature mark around the neck of the deceased.(28) In my opinion the prosecution has proved the motive in order to establish their case.The appellant was unhappy with Mrs. Law.Mrs. Law had affection for Shashi and her little child.But the. fact remains that Mrs. Law had brought up Shashi Wadhwa and was attached to her.She was also fond of Shashi's daughter.This the appellant did not like.(29) The other reason of the appellant's grudge was that in his father Johnson Mull's name no plot was purchased by Mrs. Law while she had purchased two plots in the names of her two other brothers one in the name of George Mull and the other in the name of Franklin Mull.Johnson Mull did not get anything from her.Neither the appellant nor his father was the beneficiary of her bounty.This was the reason for constant quarrel between the appellant and Mrs. Law.Edward depases to this.This furnishes the moive for the crime.The appellant killed her for a motive of greed and jealousy.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,345,155 |
According to her allegation, one accused assaulted her on her head with a stone.She was medico legally examined on 25.2.2015 and a lacerated wound was found on her head, which was stitched.Again on lodging the FIR on 26.2.2015, she was examined by a lady doctor.It appears that the prosecutrix has developed a story of gang rape, just to make the case grave.Looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix, it would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.If a gang rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix then, the lady doctor who examined the prosecutrix on 26.2.2015 would have found that hymen was torn and she sustained some internal injuries.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz.- 3 -Jageshwar may be accepted.Consequently it is hereby allowed.It is directed that the present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,355,281 |
Nobody has given any second stroke on his head and therefore, it is apparent that the applicants were not intended to kill the victim Panna Lal.In C.T. Scan report, no fracture was found to the victim on his head.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Damoh in S.T. No.45/13, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges.The facts relating to the present revision, in short are that, on 30.10.2012 at about 1:30 a.m. in the morning, the applicants had constituted unlawful assembly and they assaulted the victim Ashokrani, thereafter, when Panna Lal came to save the victim Ashokrani, the applicants also assaulted him.It was alleged against the applicant Nannhu that he assaulted the victim Panna Lal by an axe.Also, other accused persons assaulted him causing a fracture in his hand.Only one fracture was found on the head of the victim Panna Lal.The doctor, who did the MLC of the victim Pannal Lal found him conscious and there was no symptom of brain haemorrhage.In C.T. Scan report, there was no definite opinion of brain haemorrhage caused to the victim Pannal Lal.Under such circumstances, neither any fatal injury was caused to the victim nor the applicants were intended to kill the victim.No ingredient of Section 300 of IPC is visible in the case.The charges of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 324 of IPC could be framed for the injuries caused to the victim Panna Lal, whereas the trial Court has framed the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.Hence, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has committed an error of law.Under such circumstances, it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this Court by way of the present revision.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed.The order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh is hereby set aside.The applicants are discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.The trial Court is directed to proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. for trial of the remaining charges.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,436,853 |
Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Mannu @ Manohar in Crime No.61/2018 registered by P.S. Gairatganj, District Raisen under Sections 436, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, on 27.02.2018, the victim had a function at his home.At that time, petitioner Mannu @ Manohar came and beat Prembai, Rekhabai, Arti and Nikhil with stick.Thereafter, he set the house of the victim afire and ran away.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Mannu @ Manohar, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount 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.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,743,724 |
Criminal record of the petitioner shows that he has taken to a life of crime and has formed his own gang.Alongwith members of his gang he has been indulging in terrorising activities resulting in his becoming a potential danger to the safety of law abiding and peace loving citizens of the localities of B.I.T. Chawl, Mumbai Central, Bellasis Road, Kamathi Pura, M.R. Road, Nagpada and areas adjoining thereto falling within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station in Mumbai.The first of them viz., C.R. No. 303 of 1995 under section 387 read with 34 I.P.C. of Police Station, Nagapada was registered against the petitioner and his four associates on 4-6-95 on the basis of the complaint filed by Narayan Bhadegaonkar.Thereafter the informant along with the treasurer and members of the committee went and saw the petitioner who was in a room in the ground floor of building No. 17 of B.I.T. Chawl.The petitioner informed the informant and others that they should pay amounts ranging between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- as their share in the transaction of housing society.He also threatened to kill them if they did not pay.The second C.R. against the petitioner and his associates viz., C.R. No. 544 of 95 under section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. arises out of an F.I.R. lodged at Nagpada Police Station against the petitioner and his associates by one Manu Waghela.First the petitioner told him that he was informer of the police and thereafter he and his associate Laxman started assaulting him with a stick.None came to his rescue as people were scared of the petitioner.In the said C.R. it is also alleged that at about 7.00 p.m. again Kanhu Waghela and one Mahesh Jayantilal Solanki were assaulted in a room in B.I.T. Chawl with sticks.During the investigation he admitted his involvement.The third C.R. No. 645 of 95 under section 506(2) of I.P.C. was registered on 19-12-95 at Nagapada Police Station against the petitioner on the report lodged by one Devendra Singh.In the said F.I.R. it is stated that 15 days prior to 19-12-95 one Satyanarayan Yadav told Devendra Singh that the petitioner had summoned him.On 17-10-95 the said message was reconveyed to Devendra Singh.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention bearing the same date as the order of detention.Briefly stated the grounds read thus :-In the grounds of detention there is a reference to 4 C.Rs.against the petitioner.On 18-12-95 Devendra Singh visited B.I.T. Chawl wherein the petitioner told him that he wanted to buy his flour mill at Rs. 1/- more than what he had paid for it and when Devendra Singh did not accede to the petitioner's demand he threatened him saying that he would have the flour mill closed and kill him.He was granted bail but he did not avail of the same.The last C.R. viz., 646 of 95 under section 363, 392, 395, 397 of I.P.C. arises out of an F.I.R. lodged at Nagpada Police Station on 10-10-95 by one Manilal Thakkar.The allegation therein is that on 17-10-95 at 11-45 hrs.while the informant and his brother Popatlal and servants were present in the Jewellery shop known as Thakkar Jewellers, Shop No. 6 Gangubai Kanji Chawl, Lane No. 10, Kamathipura, Mumbai the associates of the petitioner told the inmates of the shop that they were members of the gang and showed Manilal something which was blackish in colour and asked him to accompany him to the petitioner's office.They went there.The associate of the petitioner Suresh Bhim told Manilal and Popatlal that he belongs to the petitioner's gang and made a demand of Rs. 25 lakhs.The associate of the petitioner Madan Dadhi with a chopper in his hand forced him to agree to pay the said amount.It is also alleged that thereafter Suresh Bhim took Manilal and Popatlal to the first floor of the building No. 13 and Suresh Bhim contacted the petitioner on phone.The petitioner disclosed his identity to Manilal and asked him to part with the amount demanded by Suresh Bhim.He also threatened Manilal that in case he did not make the payment dire consequences would ensue.One of the associates of the petitioner threatened Manilal and asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/-.Manilal after consulting his brother Popatlal agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/-.On returning to the jewellery shop, Popatlal paid Rs. 20,000/- to Madan Dadhi the associate of the petitioner.Mr. S.R. Chitnis learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the detention order on three grounds.The contention of Mr. Chitnis is that in the right of the petitioner to make a representation at the earliest opportunity, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is also implicit a corresponding obligation on the respondent No. 4 (Union of India) to consider the representation and to dispose off the same at the earliest opportunity.The said ground has been replied to in the affidavit filed by Ishwar singh, Desk Officer of the Ministry of Home, Government of India.The representation was immediately processed.It was realised that certain vital information was required from the State Government/Commissioner of Police (respondents No. 1 and 2) and a crash wireless message was sent to the said authorities on the same date.The original file was shown to us by Mrs. Tahilramani and the same bears out that it was sent.Hence the first contention of Mr. Chitnis fails.The averment of Mr. Chitnis in ground "O" is that the C.R. No. 303 of 95 of Nagpada Police Station referred to as ground No. (iii)(a)(i) in the grounds of detention was subject matter of Chapter Case No. 15 of 95 and Court Case No. 28 of 95, being a notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in this Court through a writ petition and on 20th July 1995 this Court was pleased to release the petitioner on a personal bond of Rs. 1000/-.Thereafter on 18th January 1996, while the said writ petition was pending in this Court, the show cause notice under section 111 Cr.Consequently the petitioner was discharged.Thereafter a detention order was passed against him.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,556,085 |
(ii) Nearly 20 days prior to the incident in question, Uma was sent to her matrimonial home to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law namely Mayaram.Thereafter, despite request made by Dinesh, the appellants did not send Uma back to the parental home.Ultimately, on 22/5/92, her dead body was found in a Well belonging to one Mahesh Tiwari.(iii) Accordingly, upon information given by appellant Brijlal, a marg (death case) was registered and after inquest proceedings, dead body of Uma was sent to the hospital for post mortem.It was conducted by a team of :: 3 ::Criminal Appeal No.1503/1994 doctors comprising Dr. Mrs. Hema Sharma and Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW8).They opined that Uma's death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of drowning.(7.8.2009) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 24/10/1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T. No.75/92 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under -By that judgment only, the co-appellant Brijrani (since dead) was also convicted for the offences and the other co-accused namely Rajaram, Ramdevi and Ramkali were acquitted of the charges.Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal.The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus -(i) Uma (since deceased) was the daughter of Hazarilal (PW2) and Premvati (PW3) and sister of Dinesh (PW5) who, at the relevant point of time, were residing at village Khilla, Distt.Jhansi (U.P.).Her marriage was solemnized with appellant Veerpal, a resident of village Sendari Distt.In the wedlock, they were blessed with a son, who at the time of his mother's untimely death was of 2 years of age.However, the married life of Uma was not happy and cheerful.Immediately after return from the matrimonial home on the fourth occasion, Uma disclosed that she had been persistently subjected to cruelty for -After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against as many as 6 accused including the appellants.On being charged with the offences, the appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication at the instance of the parents and other relatives of the deceased who were annoyed due to her sudden death.To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including Hazarial (PW2), Premvati (PW3), Dinesh (PW5) and his wife Chirai (PW4).The defence also examined co-villagers Majju (DW1) and Mukundilal (DW2) to establish that Uma was never subjected to any cruelty or harassment in her matrimonial home.On a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, concluded that only guilt of the appellants and co-accused Brijrani for the offences charged with was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them and in the light of the guideline laid down in Shanti v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1226, did not award separate sentence under Section 498A of the IPC.Legality and propriety of the impugned convictions have been challenged on the following grounds -(i) There was no suicidal note or dying declaration reflecting the circumstances leading to Uma's death.:: 4 ::Criminal Appeal No.1503/1994(ii) There was no earlier complaint as to alleged dowry harassment.(iii) No independent witness was examined to prove the allegation as to cruelty and the corresponding evidence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased suffered from material inconsistencies.In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the convictions were well merited.In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence as well as to the probable cause of death.Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW8) testified that no external injury was found on the body of Uma, who was carrying a pregnancy of 3 months.According to him, cause of Uma's death was asphyxia due to drowning.Correctness of this opinion was not questioned by the defence.Further, no dispute was raised on the point that death of Uma was suicidal in nature.Adverting to the evidence pertaining to the instances of the cruelty, it may be observed that ill-treatment for not preparing good food was only attributable to co-convict Brijrani, who has already expired during pendency of this appeal.Hazarilal (PW2), father of the deceased, asserted that it was he who had taken Uma to her matrimonial home nearly 20 days prior to her death.According to him, Uma had also expressed apprehension of death in the wake of non-fulfillment of demand made by her husband Veerpal Singh as well as the imputation as to her character.However, he categorically admitted that the allegation against chastity of Uma was made by appellant Veerpal and his :: 5 ::Criminal Appeal No.1503/1994 grandmother viz. co-appellant Brijrani (since dead).It is relevant to note that the other co-accused including Ramkali, the mother of Veerpal were given benefit of doubt in the light of vagueness in the accusations made against them by the relatives of the deceased.As the allegations against appellant Brijlal regarding the dowry harassment were also omnibus in nature, he was also entitled to benefit of doubt.However, both Hazarilal (PW2) and Premvati (PW3) were emphatic in stating that Uma had been subjected to cruelty and harassment not only due to non-satisfaction of demand of a new bicycle and a new wrist watch in dowry but also for being impregnated by a person other than her husband.Even though, their son Dinesh (PW5) supported the allegations yet his evidence was partly reliable as it suffered from a material omission in his police statement (Ex.D-4) as to the demand of a new tape recorder.Similarly, sworn testimony of Chirai (PW4) suggesting that the dowry demand related to motorcycle and a gold chain was also apparently not worthy of credence.Nevertheless, statements of these witnesses were consistent regarding the circumstances preceding Uma's untimely death.Accordingly, after residing with them for a considerable period, Uma had returned to her matrimonial home nearly 20 days prior to her death to participate in a marriage ceremony of her brother-in-law Mayaram.Asserting that they had also gone to the appellants' house to take part in the ceremony, Dinesh and his wife Chirai clearly stated that at the time of their departure, Uma, anticipating the same treatment as had been meted out to her earlier, had asked them to take her back to parental home at the earliest.As rightly pointed out by learned trial Judge, in the cross-examination of these witnesses, the defence was not able to elicit any material contradiction with regard to the aforesaid facts.:: 6 ::Criminal Appeal No.1503/1994The evidence of co-villagers namely Majju (DW1) and Mukundilal (DW2) to the effect that they had not received any complaint about maltreatment of Uma at the hands of the appellants and their family members did not assume any significance in view of the following facts -(i) Although Majju claimed that at the relevant point of time, he was residing in the same vicinity yet, he was not able to answer a simple query as to when Uma had returned to her matrimonial home before her death.(ii) Mukundilal clearly admitted that he had already renounced the world nearly 7 years prior to the incident in question.Admittedly, Uma had returned to her matrimonial home only a few days before the commission of suicide by her within a period of 7 years of her marriage.These facts and circumstances of the case further attracted the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, that was not sought to be rebutted by the appellant Veerpal who, being the husband, was the best person to disclose the relevant facts solely within his knowledge as to the circumstances leading to Uma's death (Yashoda v. State of M.P. (2004) 3 SCC 98 referred to).It is well settled that pregnant woman ordinarily would not commit suicide unless relationship with her husband comes to such a pass that she would be compelled to do so (See.Rameshwar Dass v. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 890).Further, in the background facts and circumstances indicating that Uma had persistently been subjected to harassment and torture, the accusation that she was carrying illegitimate child amounted to cruelty (Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209 referred to).:: 7 ::Criminal Appeal No.1503/1994For these reasons, the convictions of the appellant Veerpal do not call for any interference.In State of A.P. v. Kunasatya Narayana (1998) 8 SCC 268, the need for imposition of a just and appropriate sentence in a case of abetment of suicide by wife was emphasized by the Supreme Court.Accordingly, the sentence of three years' R.I. is fully justified and any reduction on account of lapse of time is not called for.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.In the result -He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds before trial Court on or before 05.11.2009 for being committed to the custody for undergoing remaining part of the sentence.Appeal partly allowed.(R.C. Mishra) JUDGE 07.08.2009
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,560,072 |
There are three appellants before this Court.Appellant Sallauddin @ Chuha has been convicted under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.Appellant Vinod @ Kali has been convicted under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.The sentences were to run concurrently.Nominal roll of the appellants reflects that all of them as on date Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 2 of 9 have undergone incarceration of more than 4 years i.e. approximately 4 years and 1 month.Submission being that in the absence of prosecution having nailed the person who had used the deadly weapon, benefit of doubt has to accrue in favour of the accused and their convictions under Section 397 of the IPC is thus unfounded.Testimony of PW-3 (Mohd. Sazzad) reflects that on the fateful day when he was coming down (after making the collection of money at Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 3 of 9 the asking of his mama/PW-2), three persons caught hold of him.One person caught hold of his neck from behind by putting his arms around his neck and pulled him backwards.The second person put a chopper on his neck and the third person came from the front side and caught hold of his bag.He was carrying Rs.1,25,000/- which he had collected on behalf of his mama and which he was holding.The boys tried to pull his jhola.The person who was holding his neck pressed it hard and he became unconscious and thus lost grip over the bag.The said boy snatched the bag from his hand and thereafter they pushed him.They managed to flee away.PW-3 called his mama/(PW-2) who also reached the spot.While following the boys, PW-3 reached village Barola where they entered the room; inside the house.There was one lady who told him that this house was tenanted out to Jai Kishan.PW-3 along with PW-2 entered the house by opening the kundi.The boys were putting a chappad between two planks of the doors but they somehow managed to escape.One of the boys who was running fell down in the gali.He was the one who was carrying a chappad in his right hand and the tahila bag containing the cash amount.His name was identified as Jai Kishan @ Jyoti.In another part of his examination, PW-3 stated that Jai Kishan Crl.Appellant Jai Kishan @ Kishan has been convicted under Sections 392/397 of the IPC and Section 25 read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 392/397 of the IPC.For his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 2 of 93. Learned counsel for appellant Vinod @ Kali states that the appellant has undergone the complete sentence which has been awarded to him and he accordingly be released forthwith as he is not challenging his conviction on merit.It is accordingly ordered that appellant Vinod @ Kali be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Record shows that appellant Jai Kishan @ Kishan and Sallauddin @ Chuha out of 7 years of incarceration awarded to them have undergone RI for a period of 4 years and 1 month each.Learned counsel for the appellant points out that there was confusion in the version of PW-3 (victim/injured) and he was not clear as to whether there were two chapads/knives which have been recovered from the appellants or whether there was one.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 4 of 9 had caught hold of his neck by putting his arm around his neck and pulled him back.Vinod was the person who had caught his hand and snatched his bag and Sallauddin was the person who had kept the chappad on his neck and had threatened him.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 3 of 9Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 4 of 9In his cross-examination, it was reiterated that Sallauddin had put a chappad on the back side and he can identify him as that person out of three persons who had joined hands together to rob him.In another part of his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that there was darkness at the time of incident and he could not see the accused who had caught hold of him from behind.This version of PW-3, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant reflects that there was one chopper which was involved in the incident.This has been repeated by PW-3 in various part of his deposition that there was one chopper which was used in the offence.The prosecution had however recovered two choppers/knives.Testimony of PW-2 is also relevant on this score.He had stated that when he received a phone call from PW-3 informing him that some bad elements had snatched his bag, he reached the spot from where he Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 5 of 9 along with PW-3 went to Badola Village where he was told that the accused were three in number and were present in the house.The accused heard their noise from inside and starting pulling the gate inside to open it.PW-2 along with PW-3 also pulled the gate.They tried to run away from the spot.The boy who had the bag in his left hand was also having a chappad and his name was Jai Kishan.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 5 of 9Admittedly, PW-2 was not an eyewitness to the incident.He had reached the spot after PW-3 had informed him.As per the version of PW-2, there were two chappad/knives.In the course of investigation, two knives/chappads have been recovered.One of them was recovered from Jai Kishan on the same date i.e. on 19.01.2012 and has been proved as Ex.PW-5/A. The second weapon of offence/chappad had been recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of Vinod @ Kali which was seized on 22.01.2012 as is evident from the seizure memo Ex.PW- 13/E.Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that the version of the investigation is shaky and whether there were one or two choppers, is not clear.As per the version of PW-3 (which read in its entirety) there was one chappad which was used and which was Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 6 of 9 recovered from Jai Kishan while he had fallen down when he was trying to flee away.In his cross-examination, he stated that Sallauddin was the person who had put the chopper on his neck.Recovery of these two knives was made from Jai Kishan and Vinod respectively; there was no recovery from Sallauddin.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 6 of 9The Supreme Court in (2004) 3 SCC 116 Ashfaq Vs.State had gone so far to state as under:-"Thus, what is essential to satisfy the word uses for the purposes of Section 397 IPC is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with a deadly weapon which was within the Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 7 of 9 vision of the victim so as to capable of creating a terror in the mind of the victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing, shooting as the case may be "Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 7 of 9PW-3 has time and again stated that it was one weapon of offence which was used.As per his first version, it was Jai Kishan who had caught hold of him with the knife and he was the person who had put the chappad on his neck; in his cross-examination he had stated that Sallauddin who had put the chappad on his neck.There were also two recoveries of separate knives from two persons.None was from Sallauddin.One was from Jai Kishan and other from Vinod.In this background, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Section 397 of the IPC which at the cost of repetition is an individual offence has not been established.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 8 of 9 accordingly modified from Section 397 to Section 392 of the IPC.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 8 of 9This Court notes that appellants Jai Kishan and Vinod have already undergone incarceration of more than 4 years and 1 month.They be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeals disposed of in the above terms.INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 07, 2015 A Crl.Appeal Nos.278/2014, 302/2014 & 596/2014 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,745,609 |
The essence of the FIR is: the complainant Mr. V.K.Williams, a member of the Mount Carmel School Society and Principal of Mount Carmel School needed more space to start a new school.Accordingly Mr. Williams who was acquainted with petitioners talked it over to them about space for new school.Petitioner No. 1 informed Mr. Williams that he had founded Shikcha Bharati Education Society (hereinafter called the society) which was running Shikcha Bharati Senior Secondary School.The school building was built on a land admeasuring 13 min (2-16) 14/1 (2-13) situated in village Palam Tehsil Mahrauli, New Delhi.Petitioners told him that their school was not running to their satisfaction and that they were willing to sell the land to Mr.Williams.Land was offered for Rs.2.5 crories.Six Memorandum of understanding ( in short MOU) were executed to keep the cost below 50 lakhs for each MOU to enable the (SIC) to get the Income Tax Form 34-A. As per the first MOU complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by cheque no 364053 drawn on State Bank of Patiala.Anand Niketan to Mr.For land pertaining to Khasra no.28/7/1 the complainant paid Rs. 35,00,000/- in the name of Shiksha Bharati Education Society as against the sale consideration of RS.45,00,000/-.Pursuance to these six MOU the complainant made payment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (one crore fifty lakhs).The petitioner no.1 signed another Memorandum of Understanding with a time frame of completing the formalities for handing over and laking over the management and the building Along with the land of school run by Shiksha Bharati Education Trust.As per the term of the agreement the petitioners were to get income tax clearance from the competent authority.Legal Notice was sent by A.D./UPC dated 31st March, 1998 by Mount carmel School society and Carrom William Charitable Trust, Anand Niketan, New Delhi which is reproduced as under:Similarly you, the addresses No.2 represented to be the sole owner in possession of 3 Bighas 1 Biswas in Khasra No.28/8 (0-8) & 14/1 )2-13), 1 Bigha 3 in Khasra No. 28-13 )(1-3) and 1 Bigha 16 Biswas in Khasra No.28/8 (0-3) 13 (1-13).You the addressee No. 1 and 2 have further represented to have allowed the (SIC) house as well as a 13 Bighas of land to be used by the society for running educational activities.You, the addressee No. 1 and 2 represented to be in the management of the said education social and are duly (SIC) having the approval of the managing committee for handing over the management of the said education society.Our client, throughout represented by Shri V.K.William, an Educationist have zagreed to purchase the (SIC)land and the structure along with the fittings and (SIC)and the other movables lying therein with a absolute right manage the society for a total consideration of Rs.2.50 crores.dated 28.4.97 with Carmel School Society in respect of land comprising Khasra No.7/1(2-8), 8 m (0-12) total measuring 3 bighas in the revenue estate of Palam for a total consideration of Rs.46 lakhs out of which Rs.35,00 lakhs was paid by the Mount Carmel School Society by way of cheque no.360455 dated 28.4.1997 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Anand Niketan Extension Counter, New Delhi leaving a balance payment of Rs.11.00 lakhs to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.(b) MOU dated 20.7.97 with Karan Williams Charitable Trust in respect of land comprising Khasra No.28/8 measuring 0-8 bigha, Khasra No.14/1 measuring 2 Bighas 13 Biswas, total measuring 3 Bighas 1 Biswa in the revenue estate of Palam for a total consideration of Rs.46 lakhs out of which Rs.2,00 lakhs was paid by the Karan Williams Charitable Trust by way of cheque no.361367 dated 5.7.1997 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Anand Niketan Extension Counter, New Delhi leaving a balance payment of Rs.44,00 lakhs to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.(c) MOU dated 26.7/97 with Carmel School Society in respect of land comprising Khasra No.28/13 Biswas in the revenue estate of Palam for a total consideration of Rs.23 lakhs out of which Rs.10.00 lakhs was paid by the Mount Carmel School Society by way of cheque no.360432 dated 24.4.1997 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Anand Niketan Extension Counter, New Delhi leaving a balance payment or Rs.11.00 lakhs to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.Having received the aforesaid payment, you, the addressee No.1 acting as General Secretary of the society has signed another MOU with a time frame of taking over containing various formalities to be completed for handing over and taking over the management of the school run by Shiksha Bharti Education Trust.You, the addressee no. 1, 2 & 3 have categorically agreed as per stipulation No.5 of each of aforesaid six MOUs to get Income Tax clearance from the competent authority and further to clear all the arrears pertaining to property tax, telephone bills and electricity bills up to 31st March, 1997 and also to pay all the salaries and honorarium and also to account for the security amount received from the students and staff before April, 1997 for school as well as hotel.The Addressee No.1, 2 & 3 have further agreed to inform our clients about their having done all the (AIC)formalities so as to deniable our client to get the sale deed executed on the payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.90.00 lakhs.However, despite repeated requests and reminders, you, the addressee No. 1, 2 & 3 have failed to procure the income tax clearance which is pre-requisite for execution of the sale deed in respect of the land and the structure thereon details of which are mentioned above and in each of six MOUs.(Rupees One Crore Ninty Lakhs) as against Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) received.They also undertook that those cheques on presentation would be encashed.Beside issuing the cheques and the Understandings as mentioned above, the petitioner no.1 also hypothecated his property bearing no 125, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi by depositing the title deed for the same with the Investigating Officer.The complainant also under took by way of affidavit that on encashment of these cheques he would get FIR/his complaint quashed.ORDER Usha Mehra, J.I had the opportunity to go through the order passed by S.N. Kapoor, J. Unfortunately I cannot subscribe to his views.I respectfully disagree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by brother S.N. Kapoor, J.The petitioners herein have sought quashing of the FIR bearing no.252/98/ u/s 420/120-B IPC dated 9th May, 1998 registered at Police Station R.K.Puram.When the complainant found that the petitioners were dilly-dillying with the execution of the sale-deed, he wrote letter to the petitioners demanding completion of formalities as per the terms of MOU.It is alleged that on 5th March, 1998 complainant came to know that for the land in question notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) had already been issued by the Government.This fact was not brought to the notice of the complainant, therefore, complainant found himself being cheated.According to him petitioners dishonestly induced him in this transaction and thus by fraud cheated him of a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- .You, the addressee No.1, 2 & 3 having confirmed their respective titled over the land & building and further assured the said lands & building to be unencumbered and free from, disputes as to their ownership and further the said lands and building were not subject matter of any case pending or adjudicated nor any dispute contemplated our client acting on the aforesaid (SIC) to be correct, agreed to pay to you, the addressee No.1, 2 & 3 an amount of Rs.2.50 crores on the terms and conditions mutually agreed and reduced in writing in the form of six Memo of Understanding.the details of six Memorandum of Understandings contains the same (SIC)and conditions except the details of payment.lakhs out of which Rs.20.00 lakhs was paid by way of cheque no.3605434 dated 28.4.1997 drawn no.360534 dated 28.4.1997 drawn on state Bank of Patiala.Anand Nikatan Extension counter, New Delhi leaving balance payment of Rs.25,00 lakhs to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed in respect of the property mentioned therein.(b) MOU dated 20,7,1997 singed on 9.5.97 with Carmel School Society in respect of land comprising Khasra No. 28/8 measuring 0-3 bigha, Khasra No.13 measuring 1 bigha 13 Biswas in the revenue estate of Village Palam for a total consideration of Rs.34 lakhs out of which Rs.2,00 lakhs was paid by the Mount Carmel School Society by way of cheque no.361366 dated 5.4.1997 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Anand Niketan Extension Counter, New Delhi leaving a balance payment of Rs. 32,00 lakhs to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.(c) MOU dated 28.4.27 signed on 9.5.97 with Carmel School Society by you, the addressee no.1 in the capacity of Ceneral Secretary of the addressee no.3 in respect of land comprising Khasra No. 28/7/1 measuring 1 bigha in the revenue estate of Palam for a total consideration of Rs.46 lakhs out of which Rs.35,00 lakhs was paid by the Mount Carmel School Society by way of cheque no.360455 dated 28,4,1997 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Anand Niketan Extension counter, New Delhi leaving a balance payment of Rs.11,00 lakhs to be paid at the time of legistration of the sale deed in respect of property mentioned therein.The details of the three MOUs executed by you, the Addressee no.2 are as follow:(a) MOU.You, the addressee No. 1, 2 & 3 in furtherance of the aforesaid memorandum and in part performance of the MOU for "Time Trame of Taking Over", have appointed Mrs. William as Manager of the society on 20th June, 1997 but have not performed the remaining acts on one pretext or other.As now learnt, you, the addressee No. 1, 2 & 3 having received substantial amount are new purposely delaying fulfillment of above formalities and for that reason alone, the same could not be procured.However since the due performance of MOU dated 1.7.1997 does not require this pre requisite our client willing to secure the balance payment so that in terms of said MOUs, the management of the school is handed over to our client forthwith.Our client even otherwise, are ready and willing to perform their part of each of above referred seven MOUs.We on behalf of our client call upon you, the addressee No. 1, 2 & 3 to hand over the management of the society with absolute right to manage the school being run on the aforesaid land & building on being secured of balance payment in terms of MOU dated 1st July, 1997 and further to complete formalities pre-requisite for due performance of above six MOUs for execution of sale deed in respect of properties mentioned therein, within the period of seven days from the receipt of this notice, failing which our clients has already given instruction to us to initiate appropriate proceeding for due performance of each of seven MOUs as discussed above, of course, at your cost & consequences (underlinings are mine).Petitioner No.1 also gave all (SIC) before the investigating officer admitting that he owed Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant and that his wife petitioner No.2 owed Rs.56,00,000/-.As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th May, 1998 the complainant was to withdraw his (SIC) or get it quashed on encashment of the cheques issued by (SIC).Saliont (SIC) of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th (SIC) (SIC) as under:"This Deed of understanding is made and executed on this the (SIC) of May, 1998 between Sh.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,745,644 |
On the question of review.Both the learned Counsel continued to elaborate their submissions from varioias angles.The matter was hotly contested.The application for review is, thus, allowed.The appeal is restored to its original file and number and be reheard.FA No. 12 of 2001After having re-heard the appeal by treating the same, by consent of parties as on the list for hearing of the appeal, now we propose to decide the appeal in the manner following.In the said complaint, the wife as complainant alleged that the husband/ accused "started to neglect your complainant and also started torturing both physically and mentally during her stay at the house of the accused.That the accused used to take wife (sic) regularly and almost everyday being intoxicated the accused tortured the complainant both physically and mentally and became a regular incident.The accused even has Illegal relation with other ladies and used to meet other ladies frequently and without any hesitation.That the brothers of the accused person are also of the same nature of the accused and also torture your complainant both physically and mentally and with the connivance of the accused the brothers of the accused tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant by force and If your complainant told anything about such behavior of the brothers of the accused the accused used to reply to hear the matter.Sri Humpi chakraborty born out of (in) the said wedlock.That your complainant tried her level best to stay at the house of the accused but such torture became higher and higher and the accused and his brothers, almost regularly tortured your complainant both physically and mentally.The accused also refused and neglected to give the daily meals and clothing to your complainant intentionally and willfully and the two children also never receive any love and affection from the accused person, on the other hand the accused used to behave very rough and even merciless to the said two children.This complaint was filed on 6th December, 1991 whereas the wife had lodged a diary on 4th of October, 1991 (Ext. 17, PB-II, P. 37), wherein she informed that she had no complaint against anybody and she would not start any case against anybody.No evidence has been led to prove any of these allegations by the wife.Thus, it appears to be a false allegation in relation to the character of the husband imputing that the husband had been torturing the wife and that the husband used to have illicit connection with other women.There are evidence on record that the wife used to take away the children, for which the husband had to file application under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) on 3rd of December, 1991 being Ext. 13 (PB-II, p. 26) wherefrom it appears that the wife used to leave the matrimonial home taking away the children with her even at the cost of the studies of the children and the husband had to persuade her to bring the children back.However, the husband ultimately got the daughter admitted in Mousuri (PB-1, p. 107) so as to en-I sure her uninterrupted education and that the husband had to rescue the children so as to continue their studies through proceedings under Section 97, Cr.P.C. The taking away of the children and interference with their studies, an agony for a father, desiring his children to be educated properly, would also amount to cruelty.At page 139 (PB-I) she stated, "It is a fact that after my marriage and upto this day my husband assault me but I cannot remember the number of times.I did not state to my lawyer prior to preparation of the written statement that my husband had assaulted me.I lodged no diary in P.S. about the assault.I lodged a diary in P.S. while I left my matrimonial house with my children.I made no allegation against my husband and the members of his family in the said diary".Then says.The marriage between the parties be annulled.Let a decree of divorce be granted accordingly.The question of permanent alimony is hereby settled in terms of our order dated 3rd March 2005 only with the modification that the husband shall arrange a proper flat in the locality of the matrimonial home sufficient for the residence of the wife since the husband submits that he does not have any share in the ancestral house.In addition to the maintenance, husband shall purchase a self-contained flat (at least with one bedroom with attached bath, one guestroom, drawing, dinning, kitchen, and common bath) in the locality sufficient to the requirement and status of the wife as close as possible to the ancestral home and shall fully furnish and make over the same to the wife within 6 (six) months from date and the wife shall be entitled to continue to reside in that flat till her life without any interruption from her husband or anyone else and she would continue to receive the permanent alimony in terms of the order dated 3rd of March 2005 so long she survives in the same manner as provided therein.In the result, the appeal stands allowed in terms above.CAN 1120 of 2005 and CAN 3079 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly.The judgment and decree appealed against is hereby set aside.The marriage between the parties stands annulled by a decree of divorce.There will, however, be no order as to costs.Liberty to mention.Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, the same be supplied within seven days on usual terms.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,566,034 |
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that on 28.07.2018 at about 5:30 p.m, the complainant was going to drop his cousin sister.On his way, the petitioner, who was standing near the barber shop passed some comments.At about 7:30 p.m., when the BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 1 of 4 complainant along with his brother Taufiq Ahmed were going to Madarsa, saw the petitioner standing near the barber's shop.The petitioner was questioned for passing comments on her cousin sister on which a scuffle took place.The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') read with Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 393/2018 under Section 323/354(D)/509/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station - Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.Petitioner caught hold of the complainant and the other accused Vivek picked up a tubelight from the garbage and hit on the stomach of the complainant.The brother of the complainant tried to rescue him but the both accused persons gave beatings to him.Police was called at the spot and an FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant.BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 1 of 4Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.07.2018; the petitioner has not inflicted any injury on the body of the petitioner nor provoked the co-accused; that the that the petitioner had no intention, motive or preparation to kill the complainant as there was no previous enmity between the parties; that no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioner; that the petitioner has clean antecedent.Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged crime; that chargesheet has been filed before the concerned trial Court and the matter is fixed for framing of charge on 27.04.2019 before the Trial Court; that the petitioner and the witnesses of the case are the resident of same locality and there is every possibility of influencing of the witnesses.BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 2 of 4Record perused.FIR reveals that the complainant has been assigned a specific role to the petitioner.Relevant part of the FIR reads as under :"Aaaj Shaam karib 7"30 p.m. mein apne bade bhai Taufiq Ahmad ke saath Masjid se Madarsa me ja raha tha toh raaste mein Naai ki dukan ke pass mujhe ve mere bhai to Shivajeet @ Niku ve uska dost Vivek khade mile.Jo maine ve mere bhai ne Shivajeet @ Niku ko bola ki tu meri Mausi ki Ladki ko aise comments kyon karta hai jo Shivajeet @ Niku ne bola ki veh toh aise hi comments karega.Jo itna kehte hi hamari aapas me kahasuni ho gayi aur Shivajeet @ Niku ne mujhe pakad liya ve uske dost Vivek ne mauke par kabade me padi hui bijli ki tube light uthakar todkar mere petitioner me maari to mujhe chot lagi tatha mera bhai ne mujhe bachana chaha to Shivajeet ve Vivek ne mere bhai ko bhi peeta."Status report filed by the State reveals that the complainant was treated at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where the doctors opined that "Considering the above mentioned facts, I am opinion of that the stab injury on the abdomen and cutting/tearing on the clothes could have been inflicted by produced weapon of offence (before breaking of the tube light).The injury was dangerous to life in nature."Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, specific role assigned to the petitioner in the commission of the offence and the gravity of the offence, I do not find the present case fit to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 3 of 4Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of the case.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 12, 2019 gr BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 4 of 4BAIL APPLN.204/2019 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,570,525 |
Nizamuddin .......For the petitioner This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 3712 of 2012 arising out of Siliguri P. S. Case No. 705 of 2012 dated 16.11.2012 under Sections 448/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, Darjeeling.Mr. Kushal Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of written complaint treated as FIR do not disclose prima facie any offence.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,570,547 |
The appellant and deceased Mukesh both belong to the same Village of Khera Khurd, Delhi.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was a member of a band group and used to play band at marriages.On 27.07.1988 at 8 PM a quarrel broke out between the appellant and the deceased Mukesh and the appellant is alleged to have given three knife blows to the deceased whereafter he ran away.Anil Kumar/PW7, brother of the deceased, is the eye witness and the CRL.A. No.183 of 1997 Page 1 of 5 complainant in the present case.The deceased was rushed to St.There is nothing on record to suggest that the occurrence was premeditated and from the testimony of Anil Kumar/PW7 it is apparent that he and the deceased met the appellant by chance.From the above evidence, it transpires that the incident was not premeditated and it was a result of a sudden fight in a heat of passion on account of sudden quarrel which broke out at the site.The appellant did not take any undue advantage or act in cruel or unusual manner.Stephen Hospital where he was declared as brought dead.FIR No.124/1988 was registered at PS Narela on the basis of the complaint of Anil Kumar/PW7 and the matter was investigated.Challan was filed and the charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC.The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed trial.In terms of the impugned judgment dated 29.11.1996, the learned ASJ held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in terms of the order on sentence dated 30.11.1996, convicted the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.A. No.183 of 1997 Page 1 of 5The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence preferred the present appeal.The appellant was enlarged on bail on 25.08.1999 as by that time he had already undergone sentence for a period of nine years.The appeal was taken up for hearing and the appellant is present in the Court.Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, from the appellant does not want to press the grounds of appeal on merits and admits his guilt.A. No.183 of 1997 Page 2 of 5A. No.183 of 1997 Page 2 of 5We have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent/State who has contended that the plea of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived.We find from the testimony of PW6 Dharam Singh that he saw three persons quarrelling and indulging in abuses who were pacified at that stage of time.It appears that the fight once again broke out.Anil Kumar/PW7 referred to the appellant accosting the deceased and making a comment 'Jyada Ghamandi Hai, Mai Tera Kaam Aaj Tamam Kar Doon Ga'.The appellant took out a knife and gave three blows on the chest, abdomen and hand of the deceased.A reading of the testimony of the witnesses shows that an impromptu fight broke out albeit over minor skirmishes between the parties.The knife blow having been inflicted upon the deceased, the deceased fell down and the appellant ran away while the deceased was being attended to by his relations.A. No.183 of 1997 Page 3 of 5A. No.183 of 1997 Page 3 of 5
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,573,232 |
/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(B)(ii) of Explosive Act. Learned advocate for the State, Mr. Panda submitted that when the trial Court already fixed date for examination of accused persons under Sections 313 Cr.P.C, it would be not proper to in force with the impugned order and in that view of the matter the pending Sessions Case might be permitted to be disposed of expeditiously as possible.Admittedly by an order passed by the Coordinate Bench in connection with CRR Case No. 1253 of 2011, learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court Fast Track Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum was directed to commence trial of both the cases simultaneously.Two cases were admittedly born at Murarai Police Station being Murarai Police Station Case No. 84 of 2010 under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(B)(ii) of the Explosive Act giving rise to GR Case No. 311 of 2010, and another Murari Police Station Case No.85 of 2010 under Sections 147/148/149/324/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(B)(ii) of Explosive Act, giving rise GR.The GR.Case No. 312 of 2010 arising out of Murari Police Station Case No. 85 of 2010 dated 14.04.10, by reason of the order of the High Court in CRR No. 1253 of 2011, was directed to be transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court Fast Track Court Rampurhat where Sessions Case No. 28 o f 2011 was pending.The rejection order as regards withdrawal from prosecution was allegedly made upon taking some extraneous consideration, not pertaining to the text.Admittedly the order dated 6.10.15 rejecting withdrawal from prosecution could not be challenged before the appropriate forum provided in the hierarchy of judiciary.The further contention of the revisionist was that violating the direction of the High Court, passed in CRR No. 1253 of 2011, the Court below in connection with GR Case No. 312 of 2010 proceeded to dispose of the case acquitting as many as 43 accused persons involved therein.For the reasons best known to the Court conducting the trial in connection with GR Case No. 312 of 2010, the direction of the High Court contained in CRR 1253 of 2011 could not be duly complied with.No appeal is found to have been preferred being dissatisfied with the order of the Trial Judge acquitting as many as 43 accused persons in connection with GR Case No. 312 of 312 of 2010, though appellate remedy is conspicuously provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.The grievance if thereby any, against the rejection of petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C cannot, however, be equated with the pendency of the instance case, even after disposal of GR Case No. 312 of 2010, keeping in mind that no appeal has since been preferred against order of the Trial Judge acquitting 43 accused persons thereunder.From the order impugned it appears that Sessions Case No. 28 of 2011 is about to finish the trial and the next date has been fixed for examination of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.The revisional application fails being without any merits.The impugned order dated 20.6.18 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2011 calls for no interference.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,573,672 |
4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.No.1561/2011 for the offences u/s.379 IPC on the file of the R1 Mambalam Police Station and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,574,893 |
On 13.05.2014, at about 2.10 p.m., A1 to A7 and their men are said to have entered into the property and damaged the shed that was put up inside the property by the deceased.This message was conveyed to the deceased and he came along with P.W.1 to P.W.3 and saw the accused persons loading the tiles of the shed in a TATA ACE van (M.O.2).He immediately questioned the accused persons.He was caught hold by A5 and A4 is said to have attacked the deceased with a wooden log in his knees.A1 is said to have given a blow with his hands on the chest of the deceased and the deceased collapsed and fell down and he died thereafter.3. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and he is said to have given the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.18) on 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 13.05.2014, at about 6.00 p.m. On receipt of the compliant, P.W.18, registered an FIR in Crime No.105 of 2014, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 294(b), 427 and 302 IPC.The express FIR was sent through the Head Constable (PW.17).The Head Constable had submitted the express FIR before the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy, on 14.05.2014 at 10.00 a.m.The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.19) and he went to the scene of occurrence at about 7.00 p.m., on 13.05.2014 and prepared the observation mahazer Ex.P.21 and the rough sketch.He conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.22).The investigation officer also arrested A7 and recovered M.O.7, under seizure mahazer Ex.P.23 and Ex.He also recovered the blood stained dress of the deceased and M.O.1 and sent the material objects to the Court.On 20.05.2014, he arrested A2 and A5 and recorded their confession statement.He was transferred from the station and therefore, he handed over the investigation to the new incumbent (P.W.20).P.17, it was opined that the deceased had died due to acute coronary artery heart disease with multiple abrasion injuries.“Gfhh; nfhLj;j rkak; Ma;thsh; ntsp mYtypy; ,Ue;jhh;. m.j.rh.M.20 y; rk;gt Neuk; 12 kzp vd;W Nghlg;gl;L 14 kzp vd;W jpUj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.mjd; cs; gf;fj;jpYk;jpUj;jpapUg;ghh;.Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; 7 vjphpfspd; ngah;fis Fwpg;gpl;L kw;Wk; milahsk; njhpe;j 5 egh;fs; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. rk;gtj;jpy; mUzfphp ,we;J tpl;lhhh; vd;gij tprhhpj;J njhpe;j gpwFjhd; tof;if gjpT nra;Njd;.12/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 Fhiy 11 kzpf;Nf jfty; fpilj;J rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F NghNdd;.ehd; kl;Lk; NghNdd;.Ch; kf;fis tprhhpj;jjpy; mUzfphp ,we;J tpl;ljhf nrhd;dhh;fs;.mq;F Gfhh; nfhLf;f ahUk; ,y;iy.4/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017The new investigation officer continued with the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He also recovered certain material objects.After collecting the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.16), opinion of the Doctor (Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18) and also the serological report (Ex.P.After the documents were served to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the accused persons under Sections 147, 294(b) and 302 r/w149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.On the side of the accused persons Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.The trial Court questioned the accused persons under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting all the incriminating materials before them, collected during the course of trial and they 5/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 denied the same as false.The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evience, came to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case and has proceeded to acquit all the accused persons from all charges.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below had failed to take into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, who was the son of the deceased.The learned counsel further submitted that eventhough the postmortem Doctor has stated in his evidence that the death of the deceased was caused due to heart attack, such an attack was caused only due to the single blow that was attributed to A1, who had punched the deceased in his chest with his hands.6/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017The learned counsel therefore submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court requires interference and the accused persons will have to be punished for appropriate offences.Per contra, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 7 submitted that the so called eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident and their version was falsified by the evidence of P.W.18, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, who had regsitered the FIR in this case.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was a delay in registering the FIR and there was also a delay in the express FIR reaching the Court and all the family members have been roped in after deliberation and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.The learned Senior Counsel further 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The prosecution had examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 as eyewitnesses.P.W.3 has almost spoken in line with what P.W.1 has stated in the evidence.P.W.2, who was also examined as an eyewitness did not support the case of the prosecution.The postmortem Doctor was examined as P.W.15 and he has stated in his evidence as follows:“ghpNrhjid Kbe;j gpwF ,wg;gpw;fhd fhuzj;jpw;fhd ,Wjp fUj;ij njhptpj;Njd;. ,we;j egh; jd;Dila ,Ujaj;jpy; cs;s uj;jf;Foha;fspy; Vw;gl;l mgha vy;iyf;F tpiue;J nry;fpw Mgj;jhd 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 Nehapdhy; ,we;jpUf;f $Lk; vd;Wk; NkYk; mtuJ clypy; gyjug;gl;l rpuha;g;G fhaq;fs; ,Ue;jd vd;Wk; fUj;J ,Wjp mwpf;if toq;fpNdd;.ehd; toq;fpa gpNuj ghpNrhjid mwpf;if m.j.rh.ehd; toq;fpa ,Wjp fUj;J m.j.rh.20.08.2014k; Njjpad;W Nrhkurk;Ngl;il fhty; Ma;thsh; Nfl;l ,uz;L Nfs;tpfSf;F rpwg;G epGzhpd; fUj;jhf gjpy;fs; toq;fpapUf;fpd;Nwd;.ehd; toq;fpa fUj;Jiw m.j.rh.xU egiu neQ;rpy;xU egUf;F ,Uja Neha; ,Uf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; ,we;J NghdtUf;F ,Ue;jjhf mwpf;ifapy;nrhy;ypAs;s ,Uja khw;wq;fs; ,Uf;f tha;g;Gz;L. Nkw;gb egh; mtuJ tNahfj;jpd; fhuzkhf rhjhuz epiyapy; Jhf;fj;jpy; $l khuilg;G Vw;gl;L ,wf;f tha;g;Gz;L.”It will also be relevant to extract the injuries recorded in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.16): 10/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 “Ante mortem injuries:Irregular reddish brown abrasion 4.4 x 2.2 cm., on front and inner aspect of (R) knee;Irregular reddish brown abrasion 1.4 x 0.9 cm., on front of (L) knee;Nail mark abrasions, three in number, each 0.5 x 0.4 cm., on upper part of (L) side of chest;No other external or internal ante-mortem injuries anywhere on the body.”In the final opinion which was marked as Ex.An independent opinion was also obtained from the Doctor (PW.18) in this regard.It is clear from the evidence of the Doctor, the postmortem certificate and the final opinion, that the deceased had died only due to heart attack and the same cannot be attributed to the alleged attack made by A1 with his hands.11/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017The next question that arise for consideration is as to whether the act of the accused persons will attract any minor offence for which they have to be punished.ehd; rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F NghdNghJ ,we;J Nghdtiu 108 Mk;Gyd;]; %yk; M];gj;jphpf;F nfhz;LNgha; tpl;ljhf nrhd;dhh;fs;.ehd; ,e;j jftiy vdJ Nky; mjpfhhpfSf;F kjpak; 12 kzpf;F nrhd;Ndd;.Nky; mjpfhhpfs; khiy 5 kzpf;F jhd; fhty;epiyaj;jpw;F te;jhh;fs;.mjd; gpwFjhd; Gfhh; nfhLf;fg;gl;lJ. mr;R Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; 3tJ fhyj;jpy; jfty; fpilj;j Neuk; 18 kzp vd;W vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.”A reading of the evidence of P.W.18 clearly shows that there were clear manipulations done in the FIR and he states that he went to the scene of occurrence even at 11.00 a.m., on 13.05.2014 and he had informed the higher autorities at 12.00 noon.Therefore, the version given by the eyewitnesses to the effect that the incident took place at 2.00 p.m., gets completely falsified.The delay in registering the FIR and the delay in the express FIR reaching the Court clearly shows that there was deliberation before the compliant was given and the entire family members were added as accused in this case.One of the accused persons, namely, A4 is aged about 86 years, and she is a lady, who is said to have attacked the deceased with stick in his legs.13/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017The trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record and has come to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons.This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial Court and it is only based on the evidence that was available on record.The trial Court had also pointed out several infirmities and has given sufficient reasons to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case.This Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused persons is hereby confirmed.The I-Additional District Judge(PCR), Tiruchirappalli.The Inspector of Police, Somarasampettai Police Station, Trichirappalli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.A(MD)No.338 of 2017 14.11.2019
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,208 |
In the FIR it was alleged by Veer Bala that:"her husband late Joginder Kumar on learning about a threatening call, had gone to Police Station Model Town on 21.8.1990 along with one Parshotam Garg.Joginder Kumar was taken to Samrat Hotel, New Delhi for verification of the threatening call, at about 8.30 p.m. On 22.8.1990, Veerbalal had received a telephone call from the Duty Officer of P.S. Model Town, Delhi informing her that her husband Jodginder Kumar had been admitted to Hindu Rao Hospital.On reaching Hindu Rao Hospital, she was informed that her husband had been brought dead at 5.30 a.m. Smt. Veerbala alleged that her husband had died in police custody as his body bore marks of severe beatings."Investigation taken up by the CBI resulted in filing of challan wherein it was mentioned that:R.S. Yadav functioned as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kingsway Camp, Delhi from May, 1989 to June, 1991 and was responsible for conducting inquest under Section 176, Cr.P.C. in cases of deaths in police custody including cases referred by Police Station Model Town, Delhi.The Investigations further revealed that at about 3 p.m. on 21.8.1990, an anonymous telephone call was received at the residence of Joginder Kumar by his wife Veerbala.The caller enquired 'Joginder Kumar ghar par hai'? to which she informed that he was in office and asked for caller's identity.The caller, without disclosing his identity, threatened that if she was interested in the well-being of her husband, she should send him to room No. 311 of Samrat Hotel to settle the matter which related to the murder of Gautam Prakash.She informed Joginder Kumar through his colleague in his office.Joginder Kumar came back to his residence at about 4.30 p.m. On knowing the facts of the phone call, Joginder Kumar contacted Purshotam Garg, his close friend, whose younger brother Gautam Prakash was shot dead and case RIR No. 201/ 90 had been registered in that regard at P.S. Model Town.It was agreed between the two that the matter would be taken up with Police Station Model Town.A little after 5 p.m. on 21.8.90, Joginder Kumar came to E-314, M.C.D. Colony, Azadpur, Delhi, residence of his father, along with his wife and children.At about 5.45 p.m., Purshotam Garg came there along with his relatives Jai Prakash and K.K. Gupta.Joginder Kumar accompanied them.At that point of time, Joginder Kumar was in his normal state of health without any injuries on his person.At the Police Station Model Town, Joginder Kumar was interviewed by Inspector Jasbir Malik accused and R.K. Verma, the then A.C.P., Kingsway Camp and it was decided that J.S. Malik would lead a police party along with Joginder Kumar and other police staff to Samrat Hotel for verification of the threat.Accordingly, Inspector J.S. Malik, accused left the police station at 8.20 p.m. on 21.8.1990 along with the police officials and Joginder Kumar and returned to the police station at about 9.45 p.m. Entry to this effect was recorded by Inspector J.S. Malik, accused and there was no mention that Joginder Singh had any injuries on his person.Other officials accompanying the raiding party also stated before the C.B.I. that Joginder Kumar had no injuries on his person.In the case diary dated 21.8.1990 in respect of FIR No. 201/90 written by accused C.L. Bhardwaj under the signature of accused J.S. Malik, it was recorded that after arrival at the police station, Joginder Kumar suspected one or two persons who could have given the threat and he was handed over to accused ASi Sri Bhagwan for further action regarding verification of threat in consultation with accused Si C.L. Bhardwaj.Joginder Kumar was taken by Sri Bhagwan ASi to his office room in the police station and was interrogated there by him and Si C.L. Bhardwaj.Head Constable Ishwar Singh and Head Constable Ashok Kumar also joined them.A fictitious story was set up that Joginder Kumar informed that he did not want to go home during the police party in the morning.At about 4.55 a.m. on 22.8.1990, Si C.L. Bhardwaj recorded D.D. entry No. 24- A mentioning therein that Joginder Singh (Kumar), who had received threat of his involvement in FIR No. 201/90 had stayed in the room of ASi Sri Bhagwan for accompanying the police in the morning.At about 4.50 a.m. ASi Sri Bhagwan came to his room and found that Joginder Kumar was lying unconscious.The ASi informed accused Si Chabbi Lal Bhardwaj (referred to as accused C.L. Bharadwaj hereinafter), who went to the room of ASi Sri Bhagwan and found Joginder Kumar unconscious.Accused C.L. Bhardwaj also recorded that Joginder Kumar was being taken to Hindu Rao Hospital with the assistance of ASi Sri Bhagwan, Head Constable Ishwar Singh and Head Constable Ashok Kumar and the facts were brought to the knowledge of SHO, Inspector J.S. Malik.The M.L.C. showed that he was brought to the hospital by Si C.L. Bhardwaj.On 22.8.1990, R.S. Yadav accused, the then S.D.M., Kingsway Camp prepared the death report (Unnatural death by violence) under Section 176, Cr.P.C. on the dead body of Joginder Kumar, R.S. Yadav accused described in the death report that the body of Joginder Kumar had marks of small injuries on the upper side of the right hand and left had near the outer side of the wrist and oozing of blood from the nose, whereas the post mortem report prepared by Dr. L.T. Ramani of Civil Hospital, Delhi reflected as many as seven external injuries of different sizes and shapes at different parts of the dead body.The external injuries, as per the post mortem report were ante-mortem and had been caused by application of blunt object.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1995 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 26.9.1990 of the Special Judge in Session Case No. 40/ 1994 whereby the learned Judge held appellants, Jasbir Singh Malik and Chhabi Lal Bhardwaj, guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 304 Part-II, IPC read with Section 34, IPC while R.S. Yadav was held guilty under Section 218, IPC.Inquiry in the death of late Joginder Kumar was conducted by R.S. Yadav, accused and in his report dated 27.2.1991, he subscribed to the fabricated story of the accused that Joginder Kumar had stayed in the police station during the night between 21st and 22nd August, 1990 of his own.He also examined two public men as witnesses introduced by C.L. Bhardwaj accused to support their fake story that they had heard Joginder Kumar telling accused police officials at 10 p.m. on 21.8.1990 that in view of the threat, he would prefer to spend the night in the police station.However, the said two persons, namely Allah Rakha and Suresh Kumar had denied the version in their statements recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by Shri R.K. Gauba, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Accused R.S. Yadav also falsely agreed with the version of the accused police officials that the injuries on the person of Joginder Kumar had been caused by fall in the process of shifting him from the room of ASi Sri Bhagwan to the Maruti Gypsy.It is alleged that Smt. Veerbala, wife of Joginder Kumar and other relatives of the deceased had repeatedly pointed out various injuries on the person of Joginder Kumar, but inspite of that, accused R.S. Yadav made a gross under statement of the injuries in order to save the other accused persons from punishment.A reference was made to Dr. Bishnu Kumar, Medical Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Hospital, Delhi for forming a Board of Forensic Experts for giving opinion about the cause of injuries and death of late Joginder Kumar.The Board consisting of Dr. Bishnu Kumar, Dr. George Paul and Professor S.K. Khanna of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the hospital, vide report dated 23.1.1993 opined that the seven external injuries could not be caused by blunt object/surface.The Board also opined that the injuries on the inner part of the left arm and inner middle part of the right arm could only be caused when the arms would have been in abducted position.Disagreeing with the cause of death being ischaemic heart disease as given in the post mortem report, the Board opined the cause of death as vasco-vogal attack consequent upon sustaining the injuries.It is alleged that accused C.L. Bhardwaj and Sri Bhagwan also made false entries in the records of the police station to show their departures from the police station to suit their convenience."4. Charge under Section 304, IPC read with Section 34 and under Section 342 read with Section 34, IPC was framed against the accused-Jasbir Singh Malik, Shri Bhagwan, Ishwar Singh and Ashok Kumar while a separate charges under Section 218/109, IPC were framed against Chabbi Lal Bhardwaj and R.S. Yadav.The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of their case.Learned Counsel for the appellants as also learned Counsel for the State-CBI took me through the record of the case at great length.It was argued before me that admittedly the deceased was in the police station on 21.8.1990/22.8.1990 from where he was taken to the hospital where he was declared 'brought dead'.In the night intervening 21.8.1990/22.8.1990, Joginder Kumar preferred to stay in the police station being afraid of going back home on account of the phone call which he had received which fact is borne out from the material on record.However, when Joginder Kumar was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital on 22.8.1990 at 5.30a.m., he was declared 'brought dead.Inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by R.S. Yadav, the SDM.At around 3.00 p.m. on 22.8.1990 Dr. T.L. Ramani conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased-Joginder Kumar.Blood and viscera of the deceased was preserved for Chemical analysis.Dr. Ramani in the post mortem report, Ex. PW 21/ A, found seven external injuries, which, in the opinion of the Doctor, were ante mortem caused by blunt force application and were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Opinion regarding cause of death was withheld till the report of the Chemical analysis on the viscera was received.In the subsequent report on post mortem report, Ex. PW 21/B, the Doctor opined that in view of the fact that the viscera report is negative for any poison, injuries were not sufficient to cause death and were simple in nature.There were definite signs in the heart suggesting coronary artery occlusion.Death, in his opinion, was due to ischaemic heart disease.The Investigating Agency thought it proper to seek a further opinion on the postmortem, therefore, referred the matter to a Board of Experts.The opinion of the Experts can be summed up to mean that no definite opinion could be given regarding the exact cause of death but the possibility of the deceased having vasco- vagal attack consequent upon sustaining injuries could not be ruled out.It is this difference in opinion amongst the Medical Experts that led to the belief that the injuries which, according to the Doctor, had been caused within 24 hours of the death, could be caused while the deceased was in the police custody.It is the admitted case before me that the deceased was not an accused in the case FIR No. 201/90 under Section 302, IPC, Police Station Model Town, but had come to the police station specifically with a complaint that his wife, Veerbala, PW 17, had received a threatening phone call on 21.8.1990 at 3.00 p.m. The caller had asked PW 17 to send Joginder Kumar to Room No. 311, Samrat Hotel to settle the matter relating to the murder of Gautam Prakash.This information was given to Joginder Kumar by PW 17 at around 4.30 p.m. At around 8.20 p.m. on 21.8.1990, Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik took Joginder Kumar to Samrat Hotel and thereafter brought him back to the police station.This is deposed to by PW 2, Kapoor Singh.PW 3, SI Sri Bhagwan, has deposed to the effect that after coming back from the Hotel, Joginder Kumar and Jasbir Singh Malik went to the office of the SHO where Joginder Kumar raised suspicion in respect of two persons whose names he could not remember who could possibly had given him the threatening call upon which SI Sri Bhagwan was asked to verify from Joginder Kumar names of the suspected persons.SI Sri Bhagwan was specifically told by Jasbir Singh Malik that after verification Joginder Kumar should be sent home and further proceedings should be carried out in the morning.Since Joginder Kumar was showing signs of fear, directions were given to Si Sri Bhagwan that if Joginder Kumar feels any danger, a Constable should be sent with him to his house.There is no evidence on record to show that Joginder Kumar was ever taken into custody or that he was required for any interrogation.On the contrary, it was the compliant of Joginder Kumar which was being investigated.Admittedly, the deceased did not come home that night and continued to be in the police station while Sri Bhagwan and Chabbi Lal Bhardwaj were not in the police station.Chhabi Lal Bhardwaj came in the early hours but did not meet the deceased.Therefore, the question whether the deceased had received injuries at the police station or not, remains in the realm of uncertainty.The Doctor opined that the injuries were caused within 24 hours before death which means that the injuries could have been caused before the deceased came to the police station i.e. between 21.8.1990 5.00 p.m and 22.8.1990 5.00a.m.In these circumstances, the possibility that the deceased had received injuries prior to his coming to the police station cannot be ruled out.The post mortem report reveals that the deceased was wearing a shirt, trouser, belt and under-wear.The clothes were intact.All injuries except an abrasion on the nose were found beneath the clothes, apparently not visible without exposing the body.Since the deceased had remained in the police station immediately prior to his death, the burden of showing whether injuries were caused in the police station or not rested on the accused which burden could be discharged by establishing mere balance of probabilities which, to my mind, has been discharged by the accused with reference to the ocular and medical evidence.Another aspect of the matter to which attention can be drawn is the fact that the deceased was terrified going home in the night and preferred to remain in the police station which lends one to believe that the deceased probably had been subjected to a beating by someone prior to his coming to the police station and that he was afraid of going back home.There is no evidence except for general conjectures that the accused caused injuries to the person of the deceased or that the injuries were caused in furtherance to any common intention.Also there is no evidence that the accused had any motive or mens read to cause injuries to the deceased.The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence revolving around the deceased having injuries on his person.Seven simple superficial injuries could have been caused even prior to the deceased coming to the police station.This cannot be ruled out, in which event it would be highly speculative to convict appellants herein only on the grounds that they are policemen and may be injuries were caused by them since the deceased was last in the police station.There is evidence that the deceased remained in the police station of his own volition.He was not kept there by force nor was he required to spend night at the police station.The injuries on the nose could very well have been caused when the deceased was being put into the policy gypsy while being taken to the hospital as there must have been panic in the police station seeing the condition of the deceased-Joginder Kumar in the morning of 22.8.1990 at 5.00 a.m.In the totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ingredients required to establish an offence under Sections 304 Part-II/342/34, IPC are not made out.The judgment of conviction is primarily based on conjectures and surmises.There is no positive evidence to hold the appellants guilty.The chain of circumstances does not lead to the inevitable guilt of the accused, the possibility of their being not guilty is as much as their being guilty.I, therefore, find it difficult to approve the judgment under challenge.Consequently, the same is set aside.Criminal Appeals 192 of 1995 and 196 of 1995 are allowed.The appellants are acquitted of all charges.Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1996, which is an appeal by the State, is dismissed.Since I have allowed Crl.A. 192 of 1995 and Crl.A. 196 of 1995, the benefits of this must go to the accused-R.S. Yadav who has to filed an appeal.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,224,324 |
Apprehending arrest in connection with Burwan Police Station Case No. 139 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016 under Sections 325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 797 of 2016, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that a fight ensued between two groups on the date of incident.The petitioners as well as the victim suffered injuries.The petitioners are in no way involved in the alleged offence.They have been falsely implicated due to village rivalry.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,227,430 |
All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.The present petition under Section.482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner, namely, Sh.Dushyant Kumar for quashing of FIR No. 50/2014, under Section 354A/354C/509 IPC registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi on the basis of a compromise arrived at between him and respondent No.2 namely Smt. Somi Aggarwal upon the intervention of the family members and members of the respectable society.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CRL M.C 757/2017 Page 1 of 7 submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the FIR in question.CRL M.C 757/2017 Page 1 of 7Since the past one year, he has been allegedly involved in various indecent activities of molestation towards her by pulling off her saree/shawl and using lewd and obscene language towards her while also alluring her to indulge into sexual intercourse with him.On 13.10.2014, the petitioner/accused was peeking through the window while the respondent no.2 was taking a bath and he had been doing this the since last one year, fearing which the complainant/Respondent no.2 got registered the FIR in this present matter.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent, the FIR in question warrants to be CRL M.C 757/2017 Page 6 of 7 put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.CRL M.C 757/2017 Page 6 of 7Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.50/2014, under Section 354A/354C/509 IPC registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,232,302 |
and others .. Petitioners Mr.Somnath Banerjee ... for the petitioners Mr. Debajyoti Deb ... for the State The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mayureswar Police Station Case No.10/2016 dated 15.01.2016 under Sections 147 /148/ 149/186/447/427/436/353/332/333/323/324/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 /4 of the Indian Explosive Act and 1 2 Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 9 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that Saju died in a road accident and all attempt of the petitioner no.1 to lodge a complaint was in futility.The police refused to diarise the complaint of the petitioner no.1 who is the brother of Saju, the victim.Accordingly, this application is rejected and dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) 3
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,234,227 |
Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.Office report shows that notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2, but neither opposite party No.2 has appeared before the Court nor has filed counter affidavit.In these circumstances, I am proposed to decide this Appeal with the assistance of learned A.G.A.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 44 of 2019 (State vs Ankit) rejection order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Baghpat in Case Crime No.900 of 2018 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5A of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baraut, District-Baghpat It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the co-accused person Amit has already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 07.05.2019 passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.Appeal No. 3124 of 2018 copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to this appeal, therefore, on the ground of parity, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.03.2019 and the trial is not conclude in near future.It has further been submitted that if he enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the appellant- Ankit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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 APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Pr/-
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,235,007 |
2.The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated, are as follows:-2(i) The deceased in this case, is one Audikesavan and he and his brother Murali (P.W.1) were doing business in sand and brick in the name and style of M.P.Adhi Sand Booking Office, at Erode and Audikesavan was in-charge of the business.His brother Murali (P.W.1) also used to visit the place of business.A motorcycle viz. YAMAHA, (M.O.2) and a mobile phone (M.O.1) were purchased in the name of Murali (P.W.1) and were used by Audikesavan.2(ii) The appellant/accused came to the Office of Audikesavan at about 9.00 A.M. on 23.8.2008, in connection with his employment, and demanded from his employer, a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of the fact that Audikesavan was found in possession of huge money and it was refused to be given by him.Audikesavan due to inebriated condition, slept in his Office.2(iii) While Audikesavan was sleeping, the appellant/accused in order to steal the money, cell phone and motorcycle, smothered him with a pillow (M.O.8), and after committing the crime, took the body outside the Office of the deceased Audikesavan and buried the same in a sand heap in front of the Office.2(iv) P.W.1 Murali, as the brother of the deceased, went to his house for taking lunch and his mother informed that Audikesavan, who left the house in the morning, did not return back to have lunch.P.W.1 went to the Office of his brother Audikesavan at about 5 P.M. on that day, wherein, he noted the presence of the appellant/accused and when he enquired him, the appellant/accused informed him that after having lunch, he returned back and the deceased Audikesavan was not found.P.W.1 made attempts to contact his brother through mobile phone; but, it was switched off.P.W.1 made a search to trace his brother; but, he could not find him and hence, lodged a complaint before the respondent - police station.P1 is the complaint.The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P.W.16 despatched the original complaint as well as the FIR to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode and copies of the same to P.W.17, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order of Erode Town Police Station.2(vi) P.W.17 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and examined P.W.1, Chandra, Pandurangan, Ramadoss and Mohanasundaram and recorded their statements and to trace Audikesavan along with his body, he sent necessary notification to all the Police Stations through the District Crime Bureau.2(vii) On 13.9.2008, at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Kasipalayam, has produced the appellant/accused along with a statement and special report marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively, and on receipt of the same, P.W.17 altered the crime from man missing to Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P23 and it was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.2(viii) The appellant/accused voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement and it was recorded by P.W.18 in the presence of the VAO - Alagurajan (P.W.5) and the Village Assistant Manickam.Pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement marked as Ex.P4, a sum of Rs.463/- (M.O.6) and a blue colour chappal (M.O.7) were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.The appellant/accused also took P.W.18 to the Office of the deceased Audikesavan and pointed out the place where the body was buried.The accused produced M.Os.8, 9 and 10 and they were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.W.18 also recovered M.Os.1 and 2 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P8, and thereafter, brought the appellant/accused to the police station and subsequently, sent him for judicial custody and also sent the articles under Form 95, to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.2(ix) P.W.18, in order to exhume the body and also to conduct postmortem, made a requisition under Ex.P26, to P.W.12, the Tahsildar, and on the same day (13.9.2008), examined P.Ws.4 and 5, and witnesses Udayan and Manickam and recorded their statements and subsequently, secured the custody of the appellant/accused from Pollachi Borstal Jail and produced him before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and thereafter, lodged him at Sub-Jail, Erode.2(x) P.W.18 got permission from the Court to take the appellant/accused to police custody and thereafter, took him to the scene of crime and the appellant/accused pointed out the place, in which, the body of Audikesavan was buried.P.W.18 in the presence of P.W.12, the Tahsildar, exhumed the body.P.W.12 conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The sole accused in S.C.No.101 of 2012, on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Erode, is the appellant and he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 1.10.2012, as under:-CHARGESCONVICTIONSENTENCESection 302 IPCSection 302 IPCLife Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of 3 years Simple ImprisonmentSection 404 IPCSection 404 IPC1 year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 3 months Simple ImprisonmentSection 201 IPCSection 201 IPC7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 1 year Simple ImprisonmentChallenging the legality of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant/accused, filed this appeal.P.W.18, in the presence of P.W.6 and another, took the sand (M.Os.11 to 13) and a pair of chappal (M.O.14) under a cover of mahazar Ex.P9, and sent the material objects to the Court.P.W.1 produced two postcard size photos of his brother Audikesavan as well as of his father and mother.He examined P.Ws.2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.He produced the appellant/accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and also forwarded the photographs taken in the scene of occurrence, as well as the material objects seized, to the Court.2(xi) P.W.11, the District Police Surgeon and Professor, Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, on receipt of the body, commenced postmortem at about 1.35 P.M. on 17.9.2008, and noted the following features:-1)Decomposing reddish blue coloured Contusions seen in the following regions:-a)3 x 2 cms in the lateral right upper hip.b)8 x 6 cms in the left lateral upper hip.a)Contusion inner end of left clavicle 5 x 4 cms.b)Fracture left 3rd and 4th ribs on its costocondral junction with surrounding bruising 10 x 8 cms.c)Bruising around mouth and nostrils over an area of about 12 x 12 cms with bruising of gums in anterior aspect.OTHER FINDINGS:-Peritoneal and pleural cavities -Lungs identifiable, cut section shows decomposition changes.-Heart flabby shows decomposition changes.-Hyoid bone intact.-Liver, Spleen & Kidneys identifiable, cut section shows decomposition changes.-Dura intact, Brain matter empty-Urinary Bladder empty. 2(xii) On 23.9.2008, P.W.18 made a requisition for sending the material objects for chemical analysis and also sent the viscera and skull along with the photo of the deceased and the materials collected from Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, to Forensic Laboratory after getting necessary permission.On 10.11.2008, he examined two witnesses and recorded their statements and also made a requisition on 12.1.2009, to conduct DNA test as well as superimposition test, under Ex.Since P.Ws.2 and 3 came forward to give statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., P.W.18 made necessary arrangement to record their statements and produced them before the Court and on transfer, he handed over the investigation to his successor.2(xiii) P.W.19, has continued the investigation and produced the materials collected during investigation, and did not record any statement and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet charging the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of IPC.4.The trial Court, on appearance of the accused, has framed the charges and questioned him and the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him.5.The prosecution in order to sustain the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and marked Exs.The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him, and he denied it as false.On behalf of the appellant/accused, no oral evidence was let in and no document was marked.The trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has found him guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above and hence, this appeal.6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, made the following submissions:-(b) Though the appellant/accused was missing from 23.8.2008, the complaint was lodged only on 7.9.2008, and no tenable explanation has been offered as to the belated lodging of the complaint.(c) The complaint Ex.P1, as well as the FIR Ex.When it was exhumed, except the bones and some tissues, nothing was there and if really the offence was committed on 23.8.2008, there was no possibility of such deterioration in the condition of the body.In the absence of any information as to the exact cause of death, the appellant/accused cannot be charged for the commission of offence of murder.7.In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, that since the prosecution has miserably failed to link the chain of circumstances in a complete and conclusive manner, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant/accused and he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence by allowing the appeal.(b) Extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.4, and identification of the place of burial and exhumation of body and the recovery of material objects coupled with scientific evidence.14.P.W.1 would depose among other things, that after the lodging of complaint to the police, the appellant/accused did not attend duty and on a particular day, P.W.2, who is employed as a Nurse in Vikram Hospital, told him that on 23.8.2008, his brother Audikesavan came to the hospital for taking treatment, in respect of the injuries sustained by him on his left leg, and he was in a inebriated condition and started creating problem, and at that time, the appellant/accused contacted him through cellphone, and P.W.2 attended the phone call and informed the appellant/accused about the raucous created by Audikesavan, and therefore, the appellant/accused came to the hospital and took him and at that time, P.W.2 demanded some money for treatment and the deceased told her that he is having a sum of Rs.7,000/- in Rs.500/- denomination.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,780,304 |
There was wordy altercation between both parties.Subsequently, the matter has been mediated.P.W.10 boarded the bus and left the place.P.W.11 left the place.(c) Then, P.W.1 and P.W.4 proceeded to their house.They reached Vinayagar Temple.At that time at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased Nivas came there and they were chatting at the aforesaid Vinayagar Temple.At that time, A-4 Sudhakar alias Selva Sudhakar came with beer bottle. A-1 to A-4 who are none other than the brothers and their cousin brother A-5, came there and they picked up quarrel with them. A-1 and A-3 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased and A-2 and A-5 caught hold of the left hand of the deceased.At that time, A-4 broken the beer bottle and stabbed the deceased on his right side of his chest and he sustained injuries.(d) The above occurrence was witnessed by P.W.4 Ilayaraja, P.W.5 Anbazhagan, P.W.6 Ayyakannu and P.W.7 Marikannu and P.W.6, the father of the deceased then immediately took the deceased to hospital, where P.W.2 Dr."Injury: Lacerated injury Right hypochondrium below rib.4Cm x 2cm x depth extent with abdomen.Bleeding (N.C) present in Bladder (N.C)."Alleged to assault one known person with kuf;fl;il. hPg;gh; at about 9.30 p.m. 15.1.2002 near Pillaiyar Koil.Patient conscious oriented.(g) P.W.17 Inspector of Police took up the matter for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-6 observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses and he also drew Ex.P-14 rough sketch.He also seized M.O.6 blood stained cement 'kaarai' and M.O.7 ordinary cement 'kaarai'.He took steps for taking M.O.8 series of photographs, through P.W.12 Ravichandran.(h) P.W.17 Inspector of Police conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-15 inquest report.After inquest, he handed over the dead body to P.W.15 Head Constable along with Ex.P-4 requisition to conduct autopsy.(i) P.W.3 Dr.P.W.3 Dr.Asokan conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-5 post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ liver.The following injuries were noted in Ex.P-5 post-mortem certificate:"Injuries(1) Lacerated injury 6cm x 4cm parallel to Right Costal margin 6cm below and lateral to Xihpisternum (?).Liquid blood dripped through the wound.8th costal cartilage was broken.Inter costal muscles in the 7th and 8th spaces lacerated.Depth of wound.Entering to abdominal cavity.Internal ExaminationHeart 250gms chambers Empty.Lungs Right 450gms Left 400gms C/s pale.Mucosa pale.Small Intestine Yellow semi solid material mucosa pale.Spleen: 100gms C/spale.Kidneys: Each 150gm C/s pale.Hyoid bone: Intact.Skull Bones present.Membranes Intact.Spine Intact.Brain 1200gms C/s pale.Post-Mortem concluded at 12.45 p.m.Death would have occurred 8 to 24 hours prior to Post-Mortem.Opinion as to cause of death:(a) Reserved pending report of________(b) The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ liver."(j) After autopsy, P.W.15 Head Constable handed over M.Os.3 to 5 with Ex.P-13 special report to the investigating officer.(k) All the accused surrendered before the Court.P.W.17 Inspector of Police took the accused under police custody. A-4 has given a confession and on the basis of the confession, which was recorded in the presence of witnesses, A-4 stated that he was ready to hand over the hidden weapons and in pursuance of the same, M.O.1 broken beer bottle has been seized in the presence of the witness.P-8 admitted portion of the confession of A-4 and in pursuance Ex.P-10 seizure mahazar has been prepared.(l) A-3 also gave confession that he was ready to hand over the hidden wooden reaper M.O.2, which was seized by the investigating officer in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex.P-11 seizure mahazar.(b) Since the appellants-accused are on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure their custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.11.01.2010Index: YesInternet:The Criminal Appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence, dated 28.1.2003 in S.C.No.244 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, whereby, first appellant-A-1, second appellant-A-2, third appellant-A-3 and fifth appellant-A-5 were convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months'rigorous imprisonment, the fourth appellant-A-4 was convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment, the third appellant-A-3 was also convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and the first appellant-A-1, second appellant-A-2, fourth appellant-A-4 and fifth appellant-A-5 were also convicted for the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment, the fourth appellant-A-4 was also convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC and the first appellant-A-1, second appellant-A-2, third appellant-A-3 and fifth appellant-A-5 were also convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) read with 149 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment.The sentences imposed on all the accused were directed to run concurrently.(a) The respondent-Inspector of Police, Vaduvur, Mannargudi Taluk, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.12 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC.Senguttuvan declared him dead and issued Ex.A-2 accident register, wherein the following injuries were noted:(e) Since P.W.1 Sathish alias Sathishkumar also sustained injuries due to assault by A-3 Ramesh with M.O.2 wooden reaper, he was also treated by P.W.2 Dr.Senguttuvan, who gave Ex.P-3 accident register, in which the following injuries were noticed:1) contusion left (n.c) Elbow 3cm x 2cmTreatment given.Nature of injury Simple."(f) P.W.1 Sathish alias Sathishkumar went to Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint, which was received by P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police and a case was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 147, 342, and 302 IPC and the F.I.R. copy was despatched to higher officials and the concerned Magistrate.Fracture of Right 8th costal cartilage.Liver Injury + shaped lacerated injury with irregular edges vertical limb 7cm x 2cms Horizontal limb 4cm x 2cm.Depth 4cm over the Right lobe close to the dividing line between Right and Left lobes involving anterior and superior surfaces.Weight 1400gms C/s pale.Peritoneal cavity contained 2 litres of liquid blood.Stomach partly digested RICE MATERIALS.(m) P.W.17 investigating officer sought for remand of all the accused to judicial custody and the accused were remanded to judicial custody.(n) P.W.17 Inspector of Police sent the material objects to Court.Then, he gave Ex.P-16 requisition for sending the material objects for chemical examination.After examination of the material objects, the statement of the other witnesses was recorded.After completing investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC.The trial Court framed necessary charges against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty.Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed and M.Os.1 to 9 were produced.On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and 7, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.There was a wordy quarrel.Moreover, they have attempted to assault him and to save his life, out of sudden provocation, he took the beer bottle found near the road and stabbed him.The other accused were not in the place of occurrence.P.W.1 has not sustained any injury in the occurrence at 9.30 p.m. and he sustained injury at 8 O'clock incident at the bus stop. A-1 to A-3 and A-5 are not guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) read with 149 IPC.Since P.W.1 has not sustained injury in the occurrence that took place at 9.15 p.m. at Vinayagar Koil, the accused are not guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC and A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 are not guilty of the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC.The trial Court has not considered these aspects.Learned counsel prayed for acquittal of A-1 to A-3 and A-5 from all the charges.Learned counsel further urged that merely because the accused admitted their presence while they were giving their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used for appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution.The statement given by A-5 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis for conviction.Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514 (Mohan Singh Vs.Prem Singh) and prayed for acquittal of the accused from all the charges.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that on 15.1.2002 at about 8 p.m., the first incident which took place, has been admitted by both the accused as well as the prosecution.At that time, P.W.9 Murugaiyan pacified both the parties and there was no complaint and during the incident, no one has sustained injury.The eye-witnesses P.Ws.10 and 11 have deposed that at the time of 8 O'clock incident, P.W.1 has not sustained any injury.P.W.1 is, the brother of the deceased and he is the injured eye-witness and there is no reason for discarding his evidence.Learned Government Advocate further submits that the presence of A-1 to A-3 and A-5 have been spoken to by P.W.5 Anbazhagan, even though he turned hostile.P.W.6 is the father of the deceased Nivas.Moreover, during Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, A-1 to A-3 and A-5 have admitted their presence at the time of second incident at 9.30 p.m. The trial Court has considered these aspects and came to the conclusion that they formed an unlawful assembly, because, there is no necessity for the accused to be present at the place of occurrence and they have not let in evidence to show that at that time, they were in the house.The scene of occurrence is on the way to Vinayagar Temple.But at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A-4 has admitted that he has committed the offence out of sudden provocation and filed the statement.A-1 in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that, @8 kzp rk;gtk; bjhpahJ/ ,ut[ 9?1-2 kzp rk;gtk; gw;wp brhy;tJ bgha;@/ To question Nos.1, 4 and 6, A-2 has also stated on the same lines.A-3 also stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning that, @8 kzpf;F rk;gtk; cz;ik/ ,ut[ 9?1-2 kzp rk;gtk; gw;wp TwpapUg;gJ bgha;/ irf;fpspy; brd;W nkhjpaJ cz;ik@/ A-4 has stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning that, @,ut[ 8 kzp rk;gtk; gw;wp bjhpahJ/ ,ut[ 9?1-2 kzp rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ ehd; kl;Lk; ,Ue;njd;/ ,jw;F khwhf rhl;rp brhy;ypapUg;;gJ bgha;/@ He also filed statement that he committed the offence out of sudden provocation.A-5 in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning stated that, @,ut[ 8 kzp rk;gtk; gw;wp bjhpahJ/ ,ut[ 9?1-2 kzp rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ ehd; kl;Lk; ,Ue;njd;/ ,jw;F khwhf rhl;rp brhy;ypapUg;gJ bgha;@/ All these prove that the accused were present at the respective place of occurrences.Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the trial Court has considered all the above aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion and convicted A-4 for the offence under Section 304 (Part 2) IPC and A-1 to A-3 and A-5 for the offence under Section 304 (Part 2) read with 149 IPC.There is no infirmity or illegality in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.Learned Government Advocate further submits that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514 (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, will be helpful to the case of the prosecution, since the statement given by the accused at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been corroborated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Admittedly, on 15.1.2002, 8 O'clock incident has taken place.At that time, A-3 Ramesh assaulted P.W.1 only with hands.But there was no cross-examination on this point.There was no single suggestion posed to him that at that time only, P.W.1 sustained injuries.P.W.11 Madhanraj has stated in his evidence that A-3 dashed against P.W.1 and when P.W.1 questioned the same, A-3 assaulted him, but he has not sustained any injury.In this aspect, there was no cross examination.While considering the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 along with the evidence of P.W.1, I am of the opinion that the injury sustained by P.W.1 mentioned in Ex.P-3 accident register was not sustained by him at the time of 8 O' clock incident near bus stand.So, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused does not merit acceptance.In the abovesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that P.W.1 has sustained injuries at 9.30 pm.incident near Vinayagar Temple.So, the presence of A-3 has been proved by the prosecution.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider as to whether the father of the deceased Nivas, namely P.W.6 Ayyakannu and P.W.7 Marikannu are the eye-witnesses and whether their evidence is reliable.The observation mahazar and the rough sketch show that their house is near proximity to the scene of occurrence.Moreover, at the time of 8 O'clock incident near bus stop, P.Ws.1 and 4 alone were present.Whey they were returning to their village in the opposite direction, P.W.1's brother, the deceased Nivas approached them and questioned him as to why they were very late.At the time only, he came to know about 8 O'clock incident and they sat in the verandah of Vinayagar Temple and chatting with each other.At that time only, the accused came with weapons.A-4 armed with beer bottle and others came there. A-4 in his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that except himself, none of his brothers were present at the time of occurrence.Moreover, he was not aware and at that time, the wordy altercation took place, because, the three brothers, P.Ws.1, 4 and the deceased attempted to attack him and to save his life, he took the broken bottle found on the road side and stabbed on the deceased.At this juncture, it is appropriate on the part of the Court to decide whether the presence of the other accused is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, which was accepted by the trial Court, and whether the same is correct or not.As already stated, P.W.6 is the father of the deceased and P.W.7 also witnessed the occurrence.Their house is near proximity to the place of occurrence.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the date of incident is "Maattu Pongal" day.The brothers have gone to send off their friend to the village, and they have not returned back.Naturally, the parents will stand in the Street and witness for the arrival of the sons.In such circumstances, considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, they withstand their cross examination and nothing was culled out and the way in which they withstood their cross examination is natural, cogent and trustworthy and hence, it is reliable.It is the dictum of the Apex Court that even a single related eye-witness can be relied upon, provided the same must be natural, cogent and trustworthy.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the statement of the accused in their questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated that they did not know about the incident that took place at 8 O'clock.But the incident that took place at 9.30 p.m. has been stated by them to be false.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since the accused have not taken part in the incident that took place at 9.30 p.m., they stated that it is false.It does not mean that their presence has been accepted by them.As already stated, while considering the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, it is seen that P.W.1 has not sustained injuries during 8 O'clock incident, but the injuries have been caused during 9.30 p.m. incident and P.W.2 Dr.Senguttuvan treated him and issued Ex.P-3 accident register, wherein it is stated that he was assaulted by one known person with wooden reaper at about 9.30 p.m. on 15.1.2002 near Vinayagar Temple.In Ex.P-3 accident register, it is further stated that the patient was conscious and he sustained contusion on the left elbow.P.W.1 Sathish alias Sathish Kumar was treated by P.W.2 Dr.Senguttuvan on 16.1.2002 at about 2.45 a.m., as seen from Ex.P-3 accident register.These facts have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 Dr.Moreover, when the deceased Nivas was taken to hospital, his father P.W.6 Ayyakannu has intimated to Doctor that he was assaulted by known four persons with the bottle at about 9.30 p.m. near Vinayagar Temple.So, P.W.1's evidence has been corroborated by P.Ws.6 and 7 and it proves the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence at 9.30 p.m. near Vinayagar Temple.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514 (cited supra), wherein, it is held as follows:The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence.It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it.It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution.As held in the case of Nishi Kant (Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar 1969 (1) SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422) by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution.If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."It is true that no conviction can be based on the basis of the questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It cannot be made the sole basis for conviction.But, it can be used for corroboration.In the present case, P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and 7 have deposed before Court that they have witnessed the incident.As already stated, their evidence is trustworthy.Considering their evidence, it has been proved by the prosecution that all the five accused have participated in the commission of the offence.Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no evidence before Court to show that the accused formed unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offence and hence, they shall not be convicted for the offence under Section 149 IPC.While considering this argument, there is no evidence to show as to why the accused proceeded to the scene of occurrence.Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1,4,6 and 7, it is clearly proved that the scene of occurrence is on their way to their house from the bus stand, whereas there is no evidence to show that the house of the appellants-accused is near proximity to the scene of occurrence and what prompted them to go to the scene of occurrence, has not been mentioned in the statement filed by the accused during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the statement filed by A-4, he has stated that when he was returning from Tanjore at 9 p.m., and when he proceeded near Vinayagar Temple, at that time, P.Ws.1 and 4 and the deceased Nivas questioned him as to where is Ramesh.It is the case of the defence that at that time only, the alleged occurrence has taken place.A-3 also filed his statement that he was not present at the time of the incident that has taken place at about 9.30 p.m. near the Vinayagar Temple and he came to know it later and he has not assaulted P.W.1 by M.O.2 wooden reaper.That factum has been proved by the prosecution, which has clearly proved the presence of A-3 at the time of commission of the offence at about 9.30 p.m. near Vinayagar Temple.In the abovesaid circumstances, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have not formed unlawful assembly, is not acceptable.After the incident at 8 p.m., the accused have formed unlawful assembly with the motive and they went to the place of occurrence and committed the offence.That has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and that has been accepted by the trial Court and since A-1 to A-3 and A-5 have not possessed any deadly weapon, they were convicted for the offence under Section 147 IPC. A-4 stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 bottle.The case of the prosecution is that at the time when the accused reached the place of occurrence, A-4 was armed with one beer bottle.During the wordy altercation only, he broke M.O.1 and used it for commission of offence.So, the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that A-4 is guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC.As per the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, it is clearly proved that P.W.1 has not sustained any injury during 8 O'clock incident near the bus stand, but he has sustained injuries only during the occurrence at 9.30 p.m. near Vinayagar Temple and it has been corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.2 Doctor.The trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that A-3 is guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC.Since A-3 is guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC, A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 who are the members of the unlawful assembly, are guilty of the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC.The death of the deceased is not disputed.Because of the death of the deceased, even though the accused have been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as per the statement filed by A-4, the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the incident has taken place out of sudden provocation as stated in Section 300 (Exception 1) IPC and hence, the trial Court has convicted A-4 for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC.Since A-1 to A-3 and A-5 are members of unlawful assembly, they are guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC read with Section 149 IPC.For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and I concur with the findings of the trial Court.Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.(a) The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the appellants-accused, are confirmed.The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.The Inspector of Police, Vaduvur, Mannargudi Tk.(Crime No.12/2002)The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.MALA,JcsCrl.A.No.260 of 200311.1.2010
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,039,329 |
Decisions were also cited.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and hails from a reputed family and held various positions.She was also an Additional Advocate General, during the years 2004-2006 for the State of Tamilnadu; Chair-Person of the State Minorities Commission between 1991-1996; Chair-Person of the Tamilnadu Wakf Board between 2002-2006; Correspondent of the Justice Basheer Ahmed Syed College for Women from the year 1991 to 1998 and Member of the 1st Respondent Trust/Society; and social activist fighting for the cause of women and children.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the present Writ Petition has been filed in the interest of the girl students and the staff, including teaching staff, studying and working in the Institutions administered by the 1st Respondent Trust.The 2nd Respondent herein is the Chairman of the Trust and the 3rd Respondent, who is the brother of the 2nd Respondent is the Correspondent of the Fathima Basheer Matriculation Higher Secondary School for Girls and Dyslexia Centre.The 4th Respondent is the son of one of the founders of the Trust and now the Correspondent of Justice Basheer Ahamed Sayeed College for Women and Justice Basheer Ahamed Sayeed Boys School and said to be practicing as an advocate.According to him, mere reading of the complaints would show that the allegations against respondents 3 and 4 are serious in nature.Some of the petitions are signed and some of them are anonymous.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the allegations made in the petitions are true then serious consequences follows.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the second respondent herein has sent a reply, dated 27.10.2009, stating that two of the said letters forwarded by the petitioner were anonymous and the other two bear some signatures and that he is making his own enquiries to ascertain the authenticity of those letters and that he would proceed further in the matter, after such enquiries.According to him, SIET Education Institutions are for women and thousands of girl students are studying and hundreds of women staff are working and in such circumstances, an enquiry into the allegations are necessary in the interest of the students and staff and it is the duty of the 1st Respondent Trust, in public interest, to find out whether the allegations are true or not.It is the further case of the petitioner that despite severe allegations made against respondents 3 and 4, they are still continuing to hold responsible positions in the Trust, as well as in the Educational Institutions.The Chairman of The Southern India Educational Trust, first respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter affidavit.Reiterating the same, Mr.Vijayanarayan, Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Southern India Education Trust (S.I.E.T.), is a minority institution, registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 in the year 1955, by late Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed Sahib, who was a judge of this Court.He was a champion of women's rights and established a College for Women, for the educational advancement of women in general and the weaker sections among them, in particular.He has also served as Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir Government and as Secretary to the Government of India.The allegations made against the 4th Respondent were not confined to him alone, but his innocent wife engaged in a respectable profession of teaching was also sought to be defamed.Learned Senior counsel submitted that it was obvious that the motive of the writers of these anonymous and pseudonymous letters was solely to defame the Correspondents and destroy the image of the institutions and bring down its esteem in the eyes of the students, staff and members of the public with oblique motive.To the Trust managing the affiliated college, public money is given as government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions.The aided institutions like Governmental Institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students.They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating university.The developing countries include India, parts of south-Asian, sub-Saharan and South and Eastern Africa and parts of Latin America.The object was sought to be achieved by research and development of scientific technologies which could improve the quantity and quality of sorghum (bajra), pearl and finger millet, pigeon peas, chick peas and ground nut.The facts of the above reported case are that ICRISAT was staffed by persons from 22 nations, including India who work in Asia, Africa and Latin America.Insofar as the administration and governance is concerned, a memorandum of agreement was entered into between the Government of India and Ford Foundation (acting on behalf of the Consultative Group) on 28th March 1972, by which, the Institute shall be established in India as an autonomous, international philanthropic, non-profit, research, educational, and training organisation.The Institute has to be administered by a Director, who shall be selected by the Governing Board.Besides, the Board shall be responsible for development and/or approval of the Institute's programmes and policies under which the institute operates and it shall be responsible for selection and employment of the Director, and shall approve the appointment of the senior staff members on the recommendation of the Director.The Medical Officer has ordered one Sector Health Nurse, who was pregnant to demonstrate the fundus test in front of male orderlies and others.As the said demonstration would necessitate them to disrobe to present the naked limbs to the gaze of all persons, they refused to do so and began to cry.It was also alleged that when the Village Health Nurses were waiting at Ariyalur Bus Stand, one person known to the Medical Officer, allegedly threatened them with physical harm, to withdraw the complaint.The Village Health Nurses have sent a fax message to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, seeking protection.Material on record discloses that after the copies of the letters alleging irregularities in the administration and misconduct on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 respectively were received, from the petitioner, the Chairman, the Southern India Educational Trust, Chennai, has sent registered letters, dated 12.10.2009 to all the addressees stated to have been residing at Door No.93/131 Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai, to intimate as to whether they have written any complaint against Mr.Faizur Rahman Sayeed and if so, the addressees have been requested to confirm having written such a complaint within 10 days, failing which, it would be presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter.All the registered letters have been returned with a specific postal endorsement dated 14.10.2009 "No Such Person".Perusal of the minutes dated 11.01.2010 and 06.07.2010 of the Executive Council Meeting shows that eight members including the Chairman were present in the meeting.The petitioner had not attended the meeting.A practising Advocate and Joint Secretary of SIET, Chennai, has challenged the communication of the 1st Respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref.On the basis of the pleadings and the material on record, in the form of Typed Set of papers filed by the contesting parties, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties advanced arguments.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a series of letters were received by the petitioner as well as by the other Members of the Trust, making serious allegations against respondents 3 and 4, including allegation of sexual harassment against the staff members of the college and school.Thereafter, on 05.12.2009, the petitioner sent a letter to the 2nd Respondent, stating that his personal enquiries in the matter would not satisfy the legal requirements and that a Committee is required to be constituted, keeping in line with the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court of India.Even thereafter, no enquiry Committee was constituted and in fact, the 1st Respondent-Executive Council proceeded to re-appoint the 4th Respondent as the Correspondent of the Women's College and that the petitioner noted her dissent in the meeting for reappointing him.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner was under the impression that the 1st Respondent would comply with the orders of the Supreme Court.She was shocked to receive a communication dated 01.01.2010 from the 1st Respondent, stating that out of four letters, two were to be treated as anonymous and in respect of other two letters were sent through registered post to confirm the authenticity and that the registered letters were returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that "There were no such persons" and hence these letters were pseudonymous.Lateron, S.I.E.T. established two schools, one for the boys and the other for the girls, both of them, are unaided.S.I.E.T also has a Centre for Dyslexic Children, a Vocational Training Centre, a Centre for Differently Abled Children, and a Women's Study Centre.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the first respondent has been a member of the Indian Administrative Service for 35 years and served the Government of Gujarat, as Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minster.He has also served as an Adviser to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in the wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid.Since retirement, he has served in several committees of the Government of India and Jammu and Kashmir and also a member of Pota Review Committee for Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir, the Committee constituted to review the judicial reports on communal riots.He was a member of the National Integration Council.On the date of filing of this writ petition, the first respondent has been serving as a member Aligarh Muslim University, as a nominee of the President of India.In the Republic Day Honours of 2010, His Excellecy the President of India has been kind enough to award him, with a Padma Bhushan Award for his distinguished service.According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent the third respondent is a leading Doctor in the City of Chennai and also a social worker.He is retired Senior Civil Surgeon from Tamil Nadu Government Medical service, and he is running a clinic in the middle class area of Chennai and serving the middle class and weaker sections.As far as the fourth respondent is concerned, he is the son of late Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed Sahib, who was the Founder of the College and the Society.After taking over as the Correspondent of the College, 4th respondent, has worked tirelessly and improved the functioning of the college.He is also a Barrister having passed out from Alberta University, Canada.He is also practicing as Lawyer in various Courts and a respectable member of the community.Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the S.I.E.T. is a declared Minority institution not receiving any aid from the Government and hence, does not fall within the definition of State.He has also submitted that the disputed questions of fact have been raised in the writ petition and hence, it is not maintainable.Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent further submitted that it is due to the hard work put in by the Executive Council and the Correspondents of the College and Schools respectively, the educational institutions have progressed and earned a high reputation.According to him, the prayer in this writ petition, to quash a letter issued on behalf of the 1st respondent, is wholly misconceived and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the schools are run only by the Trust with its own funds and that they would not fall within the purview of the Director of School Education, Chennai.Neither the two schools nor the Dyslexia Centre receive any grant in aid from the Government.He therefore submitted that the Trust cannot be construed as an authority/State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as contended by the petitioner.Two of these letters were anonymous and the other two contained names and they appeared to be pseudonymous.However, since the two letters contained names typed, with the address, affixing some scribbled signatures, as a measure of abundant caution, the Chairman of the Executive Council decided to ascertain the authenticity of these purported complainants before proceeding further.Registered Letters with Acknowledgments Due, were therefore sent to the addressees mentioned in the letters and that the same were returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "No such person".Since the contents of the letter were couched in such extremely scurrilous language, casting highly defamatory allegations, throwing mud on some of the respectable members of the institutions, it was therefore construed as an attempt to tarnish the image of the College, Schools and the Trust.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in none of these letters there was any serious allegation of "sexual harassment" except libelous allegations.He also submitted that there are no complainants or victims mentioned in the letters who could come forward to give evidence.Therefore the enquiry which the petitioner demands would only be a witch hunt and a fishing expedition, giving rise to rumours, gossip and further tarnishing the image of the institutions.According to him, anyone can make such serious/frivolous allegations anonymously/pseudonymously against any respectable person in the society and in the instant case, against an esteemed institution and such anonymous and pseudonymous complaints do not provide sufficient reason for holding a general enquiry, without the existence of the affected parties/complainants.He submitted that constitution of a committee for the purpose of making an enquiry, cannot be simply be ordered for mere asking.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner herself has not made any efforts to ascertain the authenticity of the anonymous/ pseudonymous letters.When registered letters were sent to the persons named in the complaint, they were returned by the postal authorities, with an endorsement "No such person" in the address mentioned by them.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, those who had made allegations against respectable persons, should come forward to prove his/her allegation and anyone, who supports such anonymous/pseudonymous letters has to ascertain the authenticity, before making any averments.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, when the petitioner herself admits that if the allegations made in the anonymous/pseudonymous letters are proved, then serious consequences would follow, then this presupposes that the alleged aggrieved persons should have come forward and aver that the complaint was made by him or her, as an affected party.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the four letters which were forwarded by the Petitioner, there was no such person existing, nor was there a claim made that the complainant in the said letter, that he/she was the aggrieved party.Nor there was any claim in the letters that an offence amounting to "sexual harassment" has been committed.Denying the contention of the petitioner that the anonymous/pseudonymous letters, include allegations of "sexual harassment" of the staff members of the College and Schools, Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submitted that a careful study of the four letters sent by the petitioner to the first respondent do not make out any "sexual harassment".The allegations are defamatory and the letters contain libelous statements, vulgar, vague averments, fictitious, false and highly motivated insinuation against the character of the respectable Correspondents and against the innocent and respectable wife of the 4th respondent.According to him, allegations are motivated, obviously with a mala fide desire to tarnish the image of the individuals and institutions.R.Krishnamoorthy, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the third respondent belongs to a respectable and well-known Muslim family of Tamil Nadu, which has produced civil servants, lawyers and Judges to serve the society.The 3rd respondent is a qualified registered Medical Practitioner with degrees of M.B.B.S., M.D., and D.M.R.D. He has served as a Senior Civil Surgeon specialist in Radiology and as Head of the Department of Radiology in E.S.I. Hospital, Ayanavaram, Madras and has been practicing medicine for a long time as a General Medical Practitioner and a Family Physician, and running a clinic in Royapettah, Chennai treating poor and middle class patients for general ailments.He is also an Honorary Member of the Committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.Learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent further submitted that the 3rd respondent has been a General Body Member of the 1st respondent, The Southern India Education Trust, for about 10 years and Honorary Correspondent of the S.I.E.T. Dyslexia Centre.But in respect of the other two letters, which appeared to have contained some names, typed at their end, some purported address and one illegible scribbled signature, the Chairman has sent letters through registered posts with Acknowledgement Due, through Postal Department to the purported writers of these letters, at the purported address, given by them in those letters, in order to ascertain their authenticity.He submitted that the Postal Department returned all the registered post (R.P.A.D.) letters sent by the 2nd Respondent with an endorsement "No such person" on each cover.He also pointed out that one of the pseudonymous letters contained the name of a purported writer, one "Mrs. Hafeeza Begum", who claimed to be an "advocate".According to him, it was incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to approach this Court, with clean hands, by bringing the so-called "Mrs. Hafeeza Begum" before this Court.Instead, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court, on the basis of those fictitious anonymous and pseudonymous letters.The present new "Secretary" Mr.Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that though the Petitioner has claimed to have "deeply interested in the welfare of the students and staff of the institutions", the letter of petitioner's brother, dated 05.01.2010 and the subsequent conduct of the Petitioner and her brother on 6.7.2010 would clearly disclose her motive.43. Learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent has denied the allegation of bias and submitted that the second respondent has ascertained the genuineness of the letters by sending registered letters through a Government agency, Postal Department, to all the so-called writers of the pseudonymous letters.These registered letters were returned by the Postal Department with the endorsement "No such person".Even one of the letters dated 6.10.2009 purported to have been written by an alleged lady "advocate", "Mrs Hafeeza Begum" was also fake.According to him, the allegation made by the 4th Respondent that anonymous letters have been instigated, have no basis and specifically denied.Heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.Before adverting to the rival contentions made in this writ petition, let me first consider the landmark judgment made in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1997 (6) SCC 241, wherein the Supreme Court, considering the rights of the working women, against sexual harassment in work places, their protection and enforcement of Fundamental and Human rights and after taking note of the International Convention and Norms, at Paragraph 16 of the judgment, held as follows:In view of the above, and the absence of enacted law to provide fro the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment at work places, we lay down the guidelines and norms specified hereinafter for due observance at all work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose.Let me now address the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the institutions are not aided by the Government.(a) In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others reported in 1976 (2) SCC 58, the appellant-Executive Committee was a degree college in the district of Muzaffarnagar registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as an institution for imparting education.A suit was filed in the District Munsif Court, challenging termination.On appeal, the first Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, reversed the decision.They are not asking for mandamus to put them back into the college.They are claiming only the terminal benefits and the arrears of salary payable to them.The former must receive a liberal meaning.The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party, no matter by what means the duty is imposed; and The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into water-tight compartments.It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of various circumstances.(g) In K.Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswar Hindu College of Engineering reported in 1997 (3) SCC 571, the appellant and six others were appointed on daily wages to the post of Lab Assistant as non-teaching staff in the respondent-private college.The Writ Petition and Appeal, seeking equal pay were dismissed.The teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government.The question is as to which forum one should approach.One of the objections was to the maintainability of the Writ Petition against the private institution.At the minimum, the requirement would be to act fairly in the matter of admission of students and probably in the matter of recruitment and treatment of its Employees as well.The private educational institutions merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people, as explained above.It is an activity supplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State."(k) In Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru Engineering College v. Sanjay Kumar reported in 2002 (10) SCC 487, students asked for refund of tuition fees and caution deposit paid by them.The same was denied and they preferred a Writ Petition.While considering the object of setting up the above said research centre, the Supreme Court observed as follows:The object of setting up ICRISAT was to help developing countries in semi-arid tropics to alleviate rural poverty and hunger in ways that are environmentally sustainable.In the meanwhile, an enquiry was held.Respondent no.1 had participated.The review application filed by the officers were also dismissed.The order made in the review was not challenged.Criminal Proceedings:The letter of the petitioner addressed to the Chairman on 12.10.2009 along with the annexures have been placed before the Council.The Executive Council has also deliberated that a reply has been sent by the Chairman in his letter dated 27.10.2009 to the petitioner, stating that out of the four letters sent by the petitioner, two were anonymous and that the other two letters contained some signatures and that a reply has been sent by the Chairman of the Council to the petitioner stating that after making enquiries to ascertain the authenticity of these letters and that he would proceed further in the matter, as appropriate.In the same meeting, the Executive Council has also deliberated that Chairman in his letter dated 01.01.2010 has brought to the notice of the petitioner that out of the anonymous and pseudonymous letter enclosed along with the petitioner's letter dated 05.12.2009, registered letters were sent to the named persons with acknowledgment due and that all the letters were returned with a postal endorsement "No Such Person", and in such circumstances the above pseudonymous letters were lodged.The Council's meeting also discloses that the petitioner has sent a letter dated 06.01.2010 to the Chairman on the same subject for which a reply has been sent.For better appreciation, the Council's deliberations on the subject is extracted hereunder:-VIII) Similarly, letter dated 7,1,2010 written by Mr. Faizur Rahman Sayeed (copy attached hereto as Annexures 13) and letter dated 8.1.2010 written by Dr. M.S. Mehkari (copy attached hereto as Annexures 14) responding to Mrs. Bader Sayeed letters were also placed before this Executive Council.(c) He remarked that some cowardly individuals, obviously financially hurt by his efforts to prevent the misuse of the college admission process and of acquisition and use of its assets and finding nothing concrete to accuse him of, have taken recourse to sending such anonymous and pseudonymous letters making wild, abusive and libellous accusations to tarnish his reputation.He observed that it is unfortunate that Mrs. Bader Sayeed has seen fit to insist on an enquiry into these false allegations.The tenor of her present letters implies her expectation and hope that she herself would be a member of such an"enquiry committee".(Copy attached hereto as Annexure 16).The Commission has observed that one of the facts of life in today's administration is the widespread use of anonymous and pseudonymous petitions by disgruntled elements to blackmail honest officials.If nothing else, the anonymous/pseudonymous petition achieves the objective of delaying the promotion if not denying the promotion.These complaints demoralise many honest public servants.The writ petitioner has addressed a letter dated 06.01.2010, to the Chairman, SIET, Chennai and alleged bias on the part of the Chairman on the ground that one of the Executive Committee Members was his own brother.The relevant paragraphs in the letter are extracted hereunder:-Further you refused to take my letter on record concerning the agenda of the meeting held on 5th December 2009 where I had specifically wanted to raise the issue that since allegations (anonymous or otherwise) of sexual abuse have been made in various letters to all the members of the institution Mr.To support bias, reliance has been placed in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs J.Jayalalitha and two others, reported in 1994 Writ L.R. 59 and Election Commission of India and another Vs.For the foregoing reasons, the allegation of bias is rejected.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.Interim Injunction granted on 08.01.2010 in M.P.No.3 of 2010, is vacated.Consequently, M.P.Nos.4 to 7, seeking to vacate interim injunction granted in M.P.No.3 of 2010, are ordered.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.No costs.Assistant Registrar True Copy/-Sub Assistant Registrarskm/3) The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai.+1 CC to Mr. S. Thiruvenkateswamy Advocate sr 47216+1 CC to Mr. C. Manishankar Advocate Sr 46911W.P.No.480 of 2010andM.P.Nos. 1 to 7 of 2010SKD-COKV 30/08/2012
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,780,414 |
The prosecution case, in brief, as given in the first information report (Ex. Ka-2) lodged by Nathoo Singh on 5-9-1978 at 7 p.m. is that Data Ram, deceased, was his uncle; that Sri Brijendra Pratap son of Raja Saheb Sarnam was murdered and in that case appellants Mahabir and Rustam were accused and his uncle Data Ram deceased was a prosecution witness; that deceased Data Ram enjoyed the company of these appellants and they used to drink together.That on 4-9-1976 at about 8 p.m. appellants Mahabir and Rustam along with another accused Itwari came at the Gher of Data Ram and had taken him to the engine of Roop Ram for drinks and enjoying a chicken.Data Ram, however, did not return till the following morning, hence he became suspicious and searched for Data Ram.At the engine of Roop Ram, Khan Sahai son of Roop Ram told him that the appellants along with Data Ram had come at the engine and remained there till 9 p.m. that they had enjoyed the drinks but thereafter they had left towards the river.The informant then went towards the river and there he found moustaches of Dataram at the river side and also some drops of blood.They tried to search the dead body but only a torn Kurta of Dataram was found (sic) the dead body was not found.As the river was overflowing the dead body could not be recovered.He lodged the first information report at the police station Marhara as stated above in the evening at 7 p.m. on 5-9-1976, also stating therein that he had suspicion.against all the three accused namely, Mahabir, Rushtam and Itwari, who had taken the deceased from the Gher.On the basis of the first information report a case was registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I.S.K. Tyagi, who reached the village in the night end on the following day on 6-9-1976 he inspected the site where moustaches and blood stains of Data Ram were found.He put the moustaches as well as sample of blood stained earth in separate sealed bundles and prepared the recovery memos.He also seized the Kurta alleged to be of the deceased.JUDGMENT H.C. Mittal, J.The above named appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 364, I.P.C. to eight years' R.I. passed by Sri V. M. Kher, IV Addl.He made every effort to find out the dead body but could not succeed.However on 7-9-1976 he came to know that the dead body had been found within the circle of police station Baghwala.On 12-9-1976 the Investigation Officer received the inquest report and postmortem report from police station Baghwala.Thereafter, on completion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the accused were charged under Sections 364, 302 read with Sections 34, I.P.C. and 201, I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty.Accused Itwari had been murdered before he start of the evidence, hence only these two appellants stood their trial.To prove its case the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses, of whom P.W. 1 Natthu, the informant, P. W. 4 Bhagwan Singh and P. W. 5 Hakim Singh have deposed that in their presence the appellants had taken the deceased from his Gher to the engine of.Roop Ram for enjoying drinks and the chicken and thereafter they did not see the deceased alive.Pokhi Ram gave evidence that when he was returning from village Pithanpur Solai then at about 9.30 p.m. (in the night) he saw the appellants in the field of Nannu Mal along with Data Ram, and on the following day in the, morning he heard that Data Ram had not returned and a search was made, when his moustaches and kurta were found near the river.P.W. 6 Roop Ram did not support the prosecution case.He was a witness to the effect that in the night alongwith Pokhi Ram he had also seen the appellants with the deceased in the field of Nannu Mal P.W. 3 Chandrapal is the son of Data Ram and has stated about the recovery of the dead body from the river.P. W. 8 Dr. Dhirendra Pratap had done the autopsy on the dead body and prepared the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-11 and had noted the following:--"The deceased was about 45 years of age.Rigor mortois had passed of.Body was in a state of decomposition.Maggots were crawling.Skin and muscles of the right side of upper half were absent.All soft tissues from the shoulder to left arm were absent.Right ear was absent.Tissues of the right cheek, left ear were partially present and skin of cheek was absent.He also noted 24 incised wounds over the chest and abdomen.One incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm over abdomen below the umblies and 3 incised wounds on the mouth and one incised wound on right side of the face.In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries.The post-mortem was done on 7-9-1976 at 3 p.m. and in the opinion of the doctor the death had taken place about 3 days back.P.W. 10 S. I. Jitem Singh had completed the investigation of the case and submitted the charge-sheet.In defence accused did not adduce any evidence.The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence that there was a motive for the accused and that they had taken away the deceased on 4th Sept. 76 from his Gher as set up by the prosecution and that thereafter the deceased was not found alive but his dead body was recovered.Evidence regarding the murder of the deceased having been committed by the accused was not found sufficient and worthy of reliance.Hence he acquitted the appellants of the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced them to eight years R.I. under Section 364, I.P.C.On being aggrieved this appeal has been preferred and on behalf of the appellants it was urged that once the appellants have not been found guilty of the murder they could not be held guilty of the offence under Section 364, I.P.C. and that the prosecution evidence to that effect was also wholly unreliable.As regards the contention that once the appellants were acquitted of murder they could not be held guilty for the offence under Section 364, I.P.C. reliance was placed on "Saidula v. Hyderabad Govt., AIR 1953 Hyd 249 : (1953 Cri LJ 1577) wherein also according to the prosecution one V.R. was forcibly abducted by the accused and five others and the said V.R. was never heard of again.Accused was tried on charges of abduction with the intent to murder and for murder.Trial Judge acquitted on the charge of murder for want of evidence of murder but convicted Under Section 301 Hyderabad Penal Code corresponding to Section 364, I.P.C. Their Lordships relied on Akam Sheikh v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Cal 35 : (47 Cri LJ 680) Ijjatulla Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Cal 42 : (46 Cri LJ 557) and Upendra Nath v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Cal 561, wherein it has been held that when the case of the prosecution is that the person abudcted has been murdered by the abductor, there is no scope for the charge Under Section 364, I.P.C. hence the conviction and sentence Under Section 301 Hyderabad Penal Code (corresponding to Section 364, I.P.C.) was set aside by their Lordships of the Hyderabad High Court.The facts of the present case are also similar.However, in the case of State v. Dallela, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 181, the applicability of the above view under all circumstances in cases where the person abducted alleged to have been murdered by the abductors themselves or other persons has not been followed and the accused appellant though acquitted by the trial Judge was convicted in appeal Under Section 364 though acquittal Under Section 302, I.P.C. his conviction was upheld as it was proved beyond doubt that the accused was one of the persons who had abducted the deceased and that he was one of the three persons who were of desperate character and had no hesitation in robbing and looting the passengers of the bus and also killing a person who might have opposed them and they had abduced the deceased.In the present case the prosecution evidence to bring home the guilt to the appellants for the offence Under Section 364, I.P.C. besides the eye-witness account is also regarding the motive of the appellants.Regarding the motive there is only oral testimony of the complainant that these appellants were accused in the murder case of Brijendra Pratap son of Raja Saheb-Sarnau and in that case Data Ram deceased was a prosecution witness.The appellants denied and alleged that Data Ram was also a co-accused.The prosecution did not tender in evidence, copy of the charge-sheet of that case or any other documentary evidence to show that Data Ram was a prosecution witness against these appellants in that murder case.The learned trial Judge, however, followed a very ingenious method of perusing the case diary of that case and observing that counsel for the accused also had no objection and from the perusal of the case diary it was apparent that Data Ram was a witness and not an accused.The conduct of the trial Judge cannot be justified, even if the counsel for the appellant had no objection or had given his consent for perusing the case diary.That could not invest the trial Judge with the jurisdiction to take into consideration the contents of the ease diary as the same is not permissible in law.P.C. According to the complainant himself as stated in the F.I.R. and in his statement on oath that, the deceased used to have drinks with the appellants and the latter had taken the deceased with them for enjoying the drinks.The prosecution evidence regarding taking away of the deceased by the appellants at about 8 p.m. on 4-9-76 from the Gher of the deceased Data Ram is that of P.W. 1 Nathoo, P.W. 4 Bhagwan Singh and P.W. 5 Hakim Singh.No doubt all of them have deposed that on that day in the evening the appellants had taken the deceased Data Ram for enjoying drinks and a chicken at the engine of Roop Ram.All of them have said that they were also present.Admittedly, deceased Data Ram was uncle of both P.W. 1 Nathoo Mal as well as P.W. 4 Bhagwan Singh.P.W. 5 Hakim Singh has also admitted that Data Ram deceased was his cousin.Thus all these witnesses are closely related to the deceased.Because of their close relationship their presence at the Gher of the deceased is also possible as well as, as alleged on behalf of the appellants, they could also make a false statement against them, hence their testimony has got to be carefully scrutinised.P.W. 1 Nathoo had not stated regarding the presence of any lantern in the first information report as well as in his statement in the Court.Both P.W. 4 Bhagwan Singh as well as P.W. 5 Hakim Singh however, stated that a lantern was burning there.According to P.W. 7 S.I. S.K. Tyagi the Investigating Officer, Hakim Singh had not told him that any lantern was burning there though Hakim Singh asserted in his cross-examination that he had so stated to the Investigating Officer.S.I.S.K. Tyagi (P.W. 7) has further stated that he did not find any lantern burning there though admittedly he had reached there in the right.He has further stated that he could not proceed with the investigation at that time as there was no provision of any light.He had not taken any torch nor the villagers had shown any lantern; that he had sent for the torch in the village but its light was very dim.Thus the testimony of Investigating Officer clearly belied the testimony of the witnesses regarding the presence of any lantern at 8 p.m. when the appellants are alleged to have taken the deceased from the Gher.That apart, the First Information Report was lodged at 7 p.m. on 5-9-1976 but P.W. 1 Nathoo Mal has stated in his cross-examination, para 15 that along with Ram Sanehi Pradhan he had reached the Police Station at about 12 in the noon.He has further admitted that the first information report was got written at the police station itself.That further creates suspicion about the sanctity of the F.I.R. and there is force in appellants contention, that the same was got written after deliberation with the Investigating Officer.There is also evidence of P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram that he was returning to the village along with Roop Ram P.W. 6 at about 9 p.m. and had seen the appellants along with Data Ram deceased in the field of Nannoo Mal.However, P.W. 6 Roop Ram though he is relation of P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram has not corroborated his statement on this point and denied to have seen the appellants and the deceased in the field of Nannoo Mal.P.W-/ 5 Hakim: Singh has admitted that P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram was his brother and deceased Data Ram was son of his uncle while P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram even denied himself to be the relation of the deceased.That clearly shows that veracity has not been the strong point of P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram.That apart, P.W. 2 Pokhi Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that he had told Natho P.W. 1 as well as wife of Data Ram deceased in the village in the morning when search of Data Ram was being made that he had seen Data Ram in the night in the field of Nannoo Mal in the moon light when he was coming to the village.However, P.W. 1 Nathoo did not mention that fact in the first information report nor he has deposed that Pokhi Ram had told him that he had seen the deceased, along with the appellants in the field of Nannoo Mal.In the first information report it was, however, mentioned that when P.W. 1 Nathoo had gone to the engine of Roop Ram to search for the deceased.Khan Singh son of Roop Ram had told him that the deceased along with the accused had come to the engine at about 9 p.m. However, the prosecution did not examine Khan Singh to corroborate the testimony of Nathoo P.W. 1 and no explanation has been given why he could not be examined.The prosecution has also given evidence regarding the recovery of a Kurta and bristles of the moustaches of the deceased from the side of the river.The evidence that bristles of the moustaches were of the deceased prima facie cannot be relied as it could not be humanly possible for any witness to recognise the bristles of the moustaches to be that of the deceased.As regards the Kurta, the same was not taken to the police station.Of course the fact of its recovery was mentioned.Under normal circumstances the same should have been taken to the police station and when the witness was asked why he had not taken it to the police station he stated that he was afraid of the police and their questioning regarding the place of its recovery.Nathu P.W. 1 and Pokhi Ram P.W. 2 have also stated that the deceased was wearing the same Kurta when he had left the Gher along with the deceased and when he was seen last with them.However, S.I. S.K. Tyagi the Investigating Officer has deposed that Pokhi Ram P.W. 2 did not tell him that the deceased was wearing the same Kurta.No question was put to the Investigating Officer as regards the statement, of P.W. 1, Nathoo on that point.However, even if the deceased was wearing the same Kurta which was recovered that is also of no avail to the prosecution.The deceased used to enjoy liquor with the appeallants and on that day also according to the prosecution he had gone with the appellants willingly.The appellants have been acquitted of the charge of murder, hence it would not be safe to hold, on the evidence on record, that the appellants had abducted the deceased with the intent to murder him i.e their conviction under Section 364, I.P.C. cannot be sustained.In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
178,045,228 |
Still no one appeared.The plaint allegation is, that the defendant lost all affection and attachment with the family of the appellant and her behaviour deteriorated and she became jealous and rude.She used to abuse the plaintiff-appellant and his family members and constantly threatened to commit suicide by jumping into "GANGA'.The behaviour of the defendant was not good towards her own daughter.She used to constantly beat her up and due to lack of affection and care, the daughter became weak and sickly.The defendant-opposite party constantly coaxed the appellant to live separately leaving his old mother behind.She also used to abuse the appellant's old mother and threatened to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself.She had no interest in the house hold work which resulted in the appellant's mother doing the daily household chores beyond her physical capacity, which led to various diseases and illness.She used foul and abusive language towards the appellant and his mother even in the presence of other relatives and guests.She had no love, affection or even consideration for the appellant.Whenever he used to come back from out of station visits in connection with his work and he came late in the night, the door would not be opened without creating a hue and cry and after much effort when the door was opened, she would go back to her bedroom without exchanging basic courtesies much less asking and offering dinner.It is alleged in the plaint that for the last more than one year, i.e., 1999, the defendant-opposite party even stopped talking to the plaintiff-appellant.She continuously neglected the appellant, his daughter and his mother.A specific allegation has been made in paragraph-24 of the plaint that the defendant refused to share bed with the plaintiff-appellant and there is no physical relationship between them for the last five years.It is also alleged that in spite of repeated request and cajoling the defendant-opposite party refused to change her attitude and her behaviour towards the appellant and his mother.It is submitted that out of the several occasions, once at a family function of the nephew, the defendant-opposite party mis-behaved and insulted the plaintiff in the presence of relatives and guests.On 9.7.2008 the defendant-opposite party left the house of the plaintiff-appellant without any information along with her ornaments and other articles leaving behind her daughter.The further allegation made in the written statement was that the plaintiff-appellant used to abuse the defendant-appellant and beat her up even in front of friends and relatives of the defendant and also threatened to mutilate her face by throwing acid on it.It is alleged that she has done a course in Music and the plaintiff-appellant never allowed her to practice music at home.With this kind of attitude, by 4.8.1995 the situation in the family became so grim that the elder brother of the plaintiff Sri Ashok Bajpayee had to approach the Police for intervention and to initiate some amicable settlement between the defendant and other family members of the plaintiff.In application dated 8.8.1995 paper no.22-Ga it has been mentioned that although the defendant regretted her mistake and had earlier promised not to repeat the same yet no perceptible change has occurred in her behaviour.The allegation of the plaintiff throughout has been that the the conduct of the defendant was far from proper and was hostile towards the mother, father and brothers of the plaintiff.Further allegation was that out of wedlock, on 20.6.1993, their daughter Anushree was born but she neglected the child which resulted in her being weak and uncared for.Her unbecoming behaviour was even more pronounced in presence of other friend and relatives of the family.Her constant threat of committing suicide either by jumping in "GANGA" or into the well or by pouring kerosene oil on herself became increasingly worrisome and a constant source of apprehension of any untoward incident happening.Therefore, time to time Police authorities were also informed.Once in February, 2000 without any provocation, on an imaginary pretext, she left the house with the threat never to come back to her in laws house.Due to intervention of respectable and senior members of the neighborhood and friends of the family she was requested to come back.Considering the request of elder members of her own family as well as members of the family of the plaintiff and well wishers, on 21.3.2000 in the presence of PW4 Sri P.K.Bhargava, who was the colleague of the deceased father of the plaintiff and DW2 who was the brother of the defendant, she wrote a letter confessing and regretting her past conduct and promising not to repeat the same.The further allegation made by the plaintiff is that even after writing the aforesaid letter at the residence of her father after which she agreed to come back to defendant's house, she continued her unruly behaviour.She continued to be neglectful towards her own daughter and did not stop foul language against the mother and neglected the defendant also.She had no sympathy for the mother of plaintiff or love for her own daughter or any consideration for her husband-appellant.The plaintiff-appellant was deprived of pleasure of the cohabitation and marriage.She did not have any sexual or mental connection with the appellant and total disregard for family custom and tradition and its reputation.Finally, on 9.7.2000 when the plaintiff was away she along with all her belongings, without any information to any of the family members, leaving behind 7 years old daughter, went away to her parents' house.Upon enquiry it was revealed by the neighbours that she loaded her articles and belongings on trolleys and was seen going away from defendant's house.It is also alleged that even after the letter dated 21.3.2000 written by the defendant and signed by her brother and Sri P.K.Bhargava, PW4 it became clear that the defendant is bent upon making the life of the plaintiff and her daughter miserable.(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.) This is an Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short the Act) against the judgment of the court below dated 12.10.2007 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 79 of 2001 rejecting the plaintiff-appellant's petition preferred under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act of 1955) for dissolution of marriage.Before proceeding further it is to be noted that the present appeal was admitted by this Court on 31.7.2008 issuing notice to the sole defendant-wife.On 5.8.2008 notices were sent fixing 8.9.2008 for putting in appearance.On 10.12.2010 fresh notice was sent fixing 12.1.2011 as the date for appearance.In spite of publication and report of the office of this Court dated 16.10.2008 that the notices have been served personally on the defendant yet when non appeared vide order dated 13.7.2011, this Court directed to proceed further with the matter as the notice upon the defendant was deemed sufficient.Under the aforesaid circumstances, in spite of fresh notice none has appeared on behalf of the defendant, we have no other option but to hear Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and deliver the judgment.A suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act was preferred by the appellant before the Family Court, Varanasi seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the defendant-wife.The case in the plaint of the plaintiff was that he married the defendant-opposite party on 17.4.1992 in Varanasi according to Hindu custom, rites and religion.The defendant's behaviour towards the plaintiff has been so cruel and so insulting that it became impossible for the plaintiff-appellant to live with the defendant-opposite party.Right from 11.5.1992 upto 4.10.2000 due to unpardonable behaviour of the defendant-opposite party and her constant threats of suicide led to the filing of various complaints to the Police authorities upon the apprehension of false implication of the appellant and his entire family in criminal cases but nothing seemed to have worked.Despite repeated request with the involvement of other elders of the family, the defendant-opposite party refused to change her behaviour or attitude and continued to inflict emotional pain and social embarrassment upon the appellant.Upon these allegations, as highlighted in the plaint, the suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was filed by the plaintiff-appellant.The defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and accusing the appellant and his family members that she was pressurized for dowry to bring Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand).She has been tortured and abused for demand of dowry.She was not given full meal for her sustenance.In paragraph-49 of the written statement, it is categorically stated that it was not possible for her to live with the plaintiff- appellant any more.Finally, on 9.7.2000 on the pretext of taking her out on a 'joy ride' in his car, the appellant left the defendant at her father's house.In the end of the plaint a list of articles has been given.In paragraph-54 of her written statement she has asked for Rs. 5, 00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) as maintenance along with the return of articles mentioned in the plaint.Replication was filed by the husband-appellant denying the allegation made in the written statement and additional statement and further alleging that the defendant is running a Mahila Grih Udyog and also doing private tuition and earning sufficiently for her livelihood.The appellant filed paper no.21-Ga to 30-Ga which were kept under sealed cover vide order of the Court dated 3.4.2003 and the photo-stat copies of the same were kept on record for ready reference.Upon the aforesaid plaint allegations and counter allegations in the written statement and the additional statement the court below framed the following issues.1.Whether the defendant by misbehaving with the plaintiff and his family members using foul language and by threatening to commit suicide has committed cruelty as has been stated in the plaint ?2.Whether the defendant has pressurized the plaintiff for living separately from the family and on his refusal used filthy and foul language and threatened to get him and his mother sent to jail by threatening to commit suicide, as has been stated in the plaint?3.Whether the defendant has deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable basis as has been stated in the plaint?4.Whether the plaintiff pressurised the defendant to arrange for Rs.50,000/- and on her refusal the plaintiff tortured the defendant?5.Whether the plaintiff's behaviour was cruel towards the defendant, as has been stated in the written statement ?6.Whether the plaintiff's behaviour was cruel towards the defendant, as has been stated in the written statement?7.Whether the articles and money as stated in the written statement is with the plaintiff and whether the defendant is entitled to get back the articles and in lieu thereof Rupees five lakh?8.What reliefs plaintiff is entitled to get?Issue nos.1 and 2 have been decided together and against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.Issue nos. 3 and 6 have been decided together.While issue no.3 has been decided against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, issue no.6 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.Issue no.4 has been decided against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.Issue no.5 has been decided against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.Issue no.7 has been decided against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.Issue no.8 has been decided against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.The main question for consideration before us is to consider issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 which have been decided against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.From the averment made in the plaint and in the memo of appeal as well as the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, issue nos. 1,2 and 3 are being considered simultaneously.In the aforesaid background, we have been called upon to consider, whether the court below has appreciated the evidence before it in its true perspective while deciding the question that the defendant by her behaviour and her foul language and constant threat of suicide as well as mounting pressure on the plaintiff to live separately from his parents has committed cruelty upon the plaintiff justifying for grant of decree of divorce ? And also whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff which may merit grant of decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act ?The case of the plaintiff throughout has been that the defendant after her marriage came to the house of the plaintiff with a prejudiced mindset and total apathy towards the family custom and traditions.She insisted upon leading a life on her own terms, irrespective of likes and dislikes and convenience of other family members.Instead of merging with the lifestyle and the tradition of the family in which she was married, she had her own peculiar code of conduct and wanted everybody else to follow her whims and fancy.There was no other recourse open but to go to the Police and thus on 10.11.2000 an application was filed before the DIG, Varanasi, SSP, Varanasi and also a letter to the Chief Minister intimating them of exploitive and intimidating conduct of the defendant.Thereafter, again on 7.2.2001 another letter was sent to the SP, Varanasi.These documents have been listed as 25 Ga, 26 Ga, 27 Ga and 28 Ga. It is alleged that her cruel conduct against the plaintiff is further revealed by lodging false cases against the plaintiff by the defendant by lodging an FIR on 9.7.2000 and crime case being registered as Case No. 6 of 2001 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was filed against the defendant, his mother Smt. Sudha Bajpayee, his brothers Ashok Bajpayee and Ashish Bajpaye.The plaintiff had to obtain interim order from this Court by which proceedings and arrest under the aforesaid Case Crime No. 6 of 2001 has been stayed by this Court.Another complaint is said to have been filed by the defendant being paper no.29 Ga/5 before the Station Officer, Women Police Station, Varanasi dated 3.2.2001 by which she claimed her 'Stridhan' mentioned in the list along with the complaint.Not only this, thereafter again a case being Case No. 67 of 2002 is said to have been filed on 17.1.2002 under Section 406 IPC before Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.The said Case No. 67 of 2002 her statement was recorded under Section 224 Cr.In the said statement she had clearly claimed that the said case was filed in order to obtain lump sum amount from her husband in order to live separately from her husband.The said Case No. 67 of 2002 was decided vide judgment dated 25.2.2004 and is filed as paper no.84 Ga. The plaintiff was acquitted of all the charges by the court below.It has also been asserted that in the statement of DW1 defendant dated 21.12.2005 before the court below it has been accepted by the defendant herself that she has complete faith in the plaintiff regarding the upbringing of her daughter.This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two.Out of 21 years of marriage, admittedly, the parties are living separately, at least for the past 13 years.The appellant-husband has made out a case for grant of decree of divorce and, therefore, issue no.8 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.Before concluding we may observe that although the defendant-opposite party is not before us, in spite of due service of notice upon her nor any claim is made before us with regard to alimony, however, in her written statement she has claimed alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) in lieu of her 'Stridhan' and for maintenance.Considering the facts that her case with regard to claim of 'Stridhan' being Case No. 67 of 2000 having been decided against her, yet it would be in the interest of justice if she is allowed permanent one time alimony of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be given by the appellant by way of bank draft drawn in favour of the defendant-opposite party.It is further provided that now the daughter Anushree has since attained majority, it is her free will to allow defendant to meet her, visit her at her choice.In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the court below dated 12.10.2007 is set aside and the marriage between the appellant and the opposite party now stands dissolved.The appellant is entitled for decree of divorce.Subject to the payment of alimony as determined, within a period of three months, the aforesaid suit no. 79 of 2001 is decreed.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
178,046,934 |
They have been sentenced as under:-CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 1 of 8(i) Under Section 392/34 R.I. for a period of four years with IPC fine of ` 5,000/- and in default, to undergo SI for three monthsThe case of the prosecution is that on 28th March at 9.45 p.m. DD entry No.125-B was recorded at PS Sultanpuri to the effect that information has been received telephonically about some persons being trying to robbed a caller near B-1 Park, Main Road, Sultanpuri, Delhi who had informed the Police Control Room and information was conveyed by lady constable REnu to PS Sultanpuri.The DD No.125-B was assigned to ASI Rajender Singh who along with Constable Surender Singh reach B-1 Park, Main Road, Sultanpuri, Delhi.The Statement of the complainant is to the effect that he is resident of Gali No.6, Bhooto Wali, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi aged about 24 years and his mobile number is also mentioned in the complaint.He reported that he was doing a private job in Jain Nagar.On that date, he was going for his duty and at about 9.30 p.m. when he reached near B-1 Park, Main Road, Sultanpuri, two young boys came in front of his cycle.He stopped the cycle and immediately CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 2 of 8 thereafter they put a 'knife' on his neck and from the rear pocket of his pant took out his purse.He raised alarm and public persons collected there and the two boys started running brandishing the knife in the air were apprehended by him with the help of public persons.Somebody called PCR.When the police arrived and both the persons whose name were revealed as Mukesh & Sikander were handed over to the police along with the knife and purse.In this case PW-2, Mohit Kumar is the complainant who has narrated the incident as under:-"I reside at the above said address along with my family and I was having a private job at Jain Nagar.On 28.03.2013 I was going to my work place at Jain Nagar being at night duty via Sultanpuri and when at about 9.30 p.m. I reached at B-1 Park Sultanpuri, there suddenly two boys came in front of my bicycle and caught hold the handle of my bicycle and stopped the ame.Thereafter one out of said boy put a knife on my neck and the other boy took out my wallet from the back side pocket of my pants.Thereafter I raised an alarm and the accused who was having knife in his hand started brandishing the knife and he along with his associate started running away, public persons gathered there and I with the help of public persons apprehended both of them.Public persons gave beatings to both the said boys.Someone out of the public dialed 100 no. and PCR arrived at the spot.On interrogation the names of said boys revealed to be Mukesh S/o Mukhtiar Singh and Kalu @ Sikander.Both the said persons were handed over to the police.My wallet was containing cash ` 300/- and my ID Card."In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not know who informed PCR and that both the accused persons were taken to the police station and he was also taken to the police station by constable who was on patrolling duty in that area.He reached police station at about 10.00-10.30 p.m. He did not inform about the incident to his family.From the police station he left for his workplace where he was working as a helper under training for which no salary was paid to him.The appellants Mukesh Kumar and Sikander @ Kalu have impugned the judgment dated 17th December, 2013 by filing separate appeals impugning their conviction and order on sentence dated 3rd January, 2014 whereby they have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC.The appellant Mukesh Kumar has also been CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 1 of 8 convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 397 IPC.Appellant Mukesh Kumar(i) Under Section 392/34 IPC R.I. for a period of four years with fine of ` 5,000/- and in default, to undergo SI for three months(ii) Under Section 397 IPC R.I. for a period of seven years Appellant Sikander @ KaluLegal action was prayed against both of them.CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 2 of 8After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge.During the course of trial five prosecution witnesses were examined.In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the appellants pleaded their innocence.However, believing the testimony of the complainant and other official witnesses, learned trial Court convicted them for the following reasons:-So far as the contradictions in the testimony of PWs as argued by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused are concerned, the same are only minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case.thus, the Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on account of the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of PWs.In State of UP Vs.Krishna Master & Ors.2010 Crl.L.J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.The accused Mukesh put knife on the neck of PW2 and the co- accused Kalu @ Sikander had taken out his purse/wallet which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. PW2 has proved his statement Ex. PW2/A. Site plan was also prepared at the instance of PW2 by the IO.The sketch Ex.PW-2/C of the knife which was recovered from accused Mukesh was also prepared by the IO.PW2 correctly identified the accused persons who robbed him and the accused Mukesh who used the knife at the CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 3 of 8 time of incident.The accused persons were apprehended at the spot.Whereas, the accused persons have not proved on record that on the day of incident, the accused persons were not present at the spot.Even, DW1 to DW4 have not supported the case of the accused persons since no complaint was filed to any higher police official or any other authority regarding taking of the accused persons by the police officials."CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 3 of 8It has been submitted that the evidence adduced in this case was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts hence the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted.On behalf of the State, Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP has submitted that the occurrence has taken place when the complainant was going on his cycle to report for his duty.Both the appellants have been apprehended at the spot and knife has been recovered from Mukesh who had put the same on the neck of the complainant while committing the robbery.Both the appellants were apprehended at the spot hence their identity also cannot be questioned.Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and appeals may be dismissed.CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 4 of 8PW-4, Constable Surender Yadav who had accompanied the IO to the spot stated that on receiving DD No.125-B before the IO he reached the spot.There one Mohit met them who produced accused Mukesh Kumar & Sikander @ Kalu who had been apprehended with the help of public persons alongwith one knife and purse.CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 5 of 89. PW-5, ASI Rajinder Singh, the IO has stated that on 28th March, 2013 at about 9.45 p.m. on receipt of DD No.125-B, he along with constable Surender Yadav reached the spot where one Mohit met them and produced both the accused persons as well one knife & purse before them.In his cross- examination he has stated that he made efforts to join the public witnesses but none came forward.The DD entry 125-B in this case was about attempt to commit robbery.PW-2, the complainant stated that he had not made any call.When the police visited the spot the complainant had produced both the accused persons as well the knife and his purse.The question arises that how the complainant alone could manage to apprehend both the accused persons one of them being armed with knife and he single handedly not only overpowered both of them but also snatched knife from them and also took back his purse.The DD entry 125-B specifically records about information kuch ladke mujhe lootne ki koshish kar rahe hai meaning thereby caller was none else but the complainant.If the complainant was all alone at that time, it is not believable that in respect of incident that has taken place at 9.30 p.m., reported to PCR at 9.45 p.m,, till the local police reached the spot the complainant could remain standing there in control of both the accused persons by holding them as well the knife after recovering his purse as well.In the FIR it is mentioned that public persons have given beatings to both the accused persons.However, the appellants have not been got examined medically which again is a very serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer.Thus, the nature of the injuries suffered by the accused persons and the manner in which they have been caused or the CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 6 of 8 weapon/object used for causing the injuries to the appellant remained unexplained.CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 6 of 8The arrest memo shows that information has been given to the mother of Sikander @ Kalu at 1.15 a.m. and to father of Mukesh at 1.25 a.m. Both these arrest memos bear the signatures of the complainant Mohit Kumar.It is PWs own version that he was not getting any salary and that he was going for second shift starting from 10.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. next day and that he was only a helper under training.In that case, it is highly probable that after remaining in police station upto 1.25 a.m. (as per arrest memo) he would proceed on cycle to his work place in Jain Nagar which is far away from Sultanpuri again risking his life at such an odd hour after the incident of robbery being committed at knife point.The complainant, PW-2 Mohit Kumar was having a mobile.The fact that he had not informed either his employer or at his residence about the incident, itself raises serious doubts about the truthfulness of his version.After carefully considering the submissions of the complainant I find his version to be highly improbable.As per him, at 9.30 p.m. the incident has taken place and at 9.45 p.m. he informed the police about an attempt of robbery being committed by some person without informing that those persons have been apprehended by him with the help of public persons.Improbability in the version of the complainant that while the two robbers were running away brandishing knife he chased and apprehended them and took back not only his purse but also disarmed them by taking the knife from them.It is his own version that when the police came to the spot he produced both the appellants along with knife and his purse before the Investigating Officer.Even their MLC have not been prepared to ascertain the nature of the injuries and explained the same.Otherwise also in respect of the incident that had taken place at 9.30 p.m. the complainant could not have waited till 9.45 p.m. to inform about attempt to commit robbery and wait further for the police to arrive at the spot.It may be necessary to mention here that complainant has nowhere stated as to at what stage he took back his purse from the appellants and also disarmed them by taking knife from them.CRL.A.Nos.1239/2014 & 1282/2014 Page 7 of 8Therefore, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution story is full of improbabilities, inconsistencies and contradictions.The learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants by placing reliance on the testimony of the complainant and the police officials ASI Rajender Singh & Constable Surender Yadav.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.PRATIBHA RANI, J.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,047,020 |
The said amendment be carried out immediately.2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Salunke for the appellants andlearned APP Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav for the respondent-State.3 Perusal of the documents annexed would show, that theappellant No.1 was making complaint against the informant since 17.12.2019and she has lodged Crime No.716/2019 on 18.12.2019 for the offencepunishable under Section 354-D, 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code. ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::2 Cri.Appeal_441_2020Again complaint application filed on 30.12.2019 and First Information Reportis registered bearing Crime No.10/2020 on 06.01.2020 for the offencepunishable under Section 354, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal.Apart from the usual mode, APP as well as Investigating Officerto comply with Section 15-A of the Atrocities Act, so also liberty is granted tothe appellant to serve the respondent No.2 privately by permissible mode.5 Till the notice is returnable and the respondent No.2 appears,present appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity.They shall co-operate with the investigation.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, till further orders.( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )agd ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2020 07:24:10 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,047,198 |
1 7.2019 p.b.CRR 1483 of 2019 In re: Union Bank of India.Mr. Sekhar Basu, Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Mr. Ranajit Chowdhury, Mr. A. Rathore......for the petitioner.In this revisional application, the petitioners have sought to quash the proceeding of G.R. Case No.2260 of 2016 arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No.590 of 2016 dated 2nd November, 2016 under Sections 406/409/420/565/567/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and specifically challenged the order dated 29th December, 2018 passed by learned court thereby warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by recording them as absconder.The Union of India has been arrayed as the accused through the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank.The petitioner is directed to serve copy of the application along with annexures to the opposite party no.2 by speed post with a/d and the opposite 3 party State through the learned Public Prosecutor within a period of two weeks and to file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.List the matter under the same heading after expiry of four weeks.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
689,272 |
Mr. Santosh S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State .......[CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:By preferring the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the charge sheet and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 ::: {2} proceedings of RTC No.88/2010 on the file of JMFC, Rahuri, which arise out of crime No.98/2010 registered with Rahuri police Station for an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of the learned counsel for applicant and learned APP, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.The facts, which gave rise to file the present criminal application, may briefly be summarized thus -The applicant was the highest bidder in the said auction and hence the said auction was granted in favour of the applicant.The applicant had purchased the said auction for Rs.96,00,000/-.In the said reply, the applicant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 ::: {3} has contended that though the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.4,68,000/- in the Treasury towards the purchase of auction, yet due to certain financial difficulty, he would not be in a position to deposit the balance amount and thus, he had shown his inability to deposit the balance amount and also informed that the auction granted in his favour be cancelled and the said sand strip be re-auctioned, as per prescribed procedure.Hence, the present criminal application for quashing the said offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::In the light of the rival submissions, perused the statements of the witnesses-government employees, recorded during the investigation.Accepting the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation as it is yet, whether the act alleged against the applicant would constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code? To consider as to what ingredients are ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 ::: {4} required to constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Penal Code, it is necessary to see the text of section 420, which reads thus -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."Thus, considering the provisions of section 420, it is clear that no property or part of property was delivered to the applicant, as admittedly, the applicant has not excavated any sand from the said sand strip and hence no offence punishable u/s 420 would constitute against the applicant.Second requisite aspect to constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Penal Code is that due to delivery of property there shall be wrongful loss to the owner and wrongful gain to the accused.However, considering the allegations, no property was delivered in possession of the applicant and hence it cannot be said that there is wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to the applicant.On the contrary, as per the terms and conditions of the auction, particularly term No.17, the amount which was deposited by the applicant, was to be confiscated.Condition No.17 and 18 further ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 ::: {5} states that if within the stipulated period the auction holder does not deposit the amount as per conditions, then the Government is at liberty to re-auction the said sand strip.Thus, on the failure on the part of the applicant to deposit the amount against purchase of auction, the Government is at liberty to re-auction the said sand strip.As per clause 10 of the agreement, the expenses incurred for re-auction of the said sand strip are to be recovered from the auction purchaser.Thus, in the conditions itself, remedy is available for recovery of expenses.Learned APP, by pointing out clause 10, has contended that in case of failure on the part of auction purchaser to comply the terms and conditions, he is liable for criminal prosecution.However, fact remains that to constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC, it is necessary that ingredients of section 415 must present.After going through the contents of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the action of the applicant would not attract provisions of section 415 for which penal provision is provided u/s 420 of the IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::Thus, it is clear that the investigation carried out on the complaint in Crime No.98/2010 would not constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC against the applicant.Therefore, the charge sheet and proceedings of RTC No.88/2010 on the file of JMFC, Rahuri are liable to be quashed and set aside.In the result, the application succeeds.The charge ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 ::: {6} sheet filed on the basis of Crime No.98/2010 registered with Rahuri police station, is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the proceedings of RTC No.88/2010 pending on the file of JMFC, Rahuri, are also quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::Criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.[A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2142-10 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:12:15 :::
|
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,930,974 |
The prosecution case in brief is that on December 27, 1997 at 16:50 hours, Biren Ghosh submitted a written complaint before the Officer- in-Charge at Dhubulia Police Station against the appellants, alleging that his brother, Sambhu Ghosh, was murdered on that date at about 3-3.30 p.m. by the appellants, while he was returning from Parmedia Mouza where he had gone to observe the crops in his own land which was near the land of Sushanta Ghosh of their Village-Mayakole.It was further alleged that Sakshi Ghosh fired at the victim, that is, the brother of the defacto complainant from a pipe gun on his right arm pit.The victim tried to flee away, but failed and fell down on the ground, when Swapan Ghosh chopped Sambhu Ghosh on his right hand with a 'Ram dao'.Then, Arup, Bangshi and Paritosh Ghosh chopped him on his leg and hands.Basudeb Ghosh 3 shouted 'khun kore fel, jane benche na thake'.It was also alleged that the victim was returning with his son Sagar Ghosh, Sribash Ghosh (uncle's son) and Sachin Ghosh (victim's uncle).Thereafter the incident was informed to the defacto complainant by Sagar Ghosh and accordingly the defacto complainant and other persons of their village went to the place of occurrence and found that the body of Sambhu Ghosh was lying there.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) Present:The Hon'ble Chief Justice Debasish Kar Gupta And The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar CRA No. 210 Of 2006 With CRA No. 300 Of 2006 With CRA No. 297 Of 2010 Dilu Ghosh & Ors.The State of West Bengal For Appellants Nos 3, 4,5&11 : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, : Mr. Apalak Basu, : Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas, : Mr. Amit Biswas, : Ms. Moumita Pandit, : Mrs. Priyanka Ghosh Chowdhury, : Mr. Tirthankar Dey, : Mr. S. Naskar, : Mr. Nazir Ahmed, : Mr. A. Jha, : Ms. Poulami Bhattacharya.2 Judgment on : 20/12/2018 Shampa Sarkar, J. :Subsequently, the defacto complainant went to Dhubulia Police Station and filed a written complaint on the basis of the information given to him by Sagar Ghosh and Sribas Ghosh (uncle's son).Thereafter, Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 142 of 1997 dated December 27, 1997 was started against the accused appellants and one Badal Ghosh, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and the investigation was taken up.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused appellants and Badal Ghosh.The accused appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.The defence case as appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and examination of the accused persons under Section 313 were that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry and the accused Basudeb Ghosh was a school teacher of Mayakole Primary School who on the relevant date and time had attended the School, and as such his presence at the place of occurrence was absolutely false.The accused Badal Ghosh was the son of the accused Basudeb Ghosh who on the relevant date and time was being coached by his private tutor along with others at Krishnagar from 2 to 5 p.m. and as such, his involvement in the incident was also false and concocted.At the trial 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and some documents were exhibited marked as Exbt.Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.The learned Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each.The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found the accused Badal Ghosh not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 302 and 34 5 of Indian Penal Code and passed an order of acquittal under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia First Court at Krishnagar on 28.2.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 1 of January, 2001 the appellants have preferred these appeals.Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee appeared on the behalf of the accused appellants No.4, 5 and 11 and as amicus curiae in respect of the other accused appellants.He submitted that the entire prosecution case was demolished by major contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses.He submitted that the credibility of the witnesses had been shaken through effective cross examination and there were major contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses as also between the statements of the eye witnesses and the first investigation officer.According to him, the hostile witnesses had demolished the genesis of the prosecution case and the defence could derive benefit from the evidence of the hostile witnesses.He further submitted that the prosecution case had become weak as the statements of prosecution witness no. 12 (first investigating officer) although did not support the prosecution case had not been declared hostile.He argued, that as the murder weapon was not seized, and the bullet was not sent to the forensic Science Laboratory for ballistic report there was no proof that a pipe gun was used as a murder weapon and as such the manner of assault and the murder was thus not proved.He urged that the tendency of 6 exaggeration by the witnesses while deposing in a parrot like manner made their testimony unworthy of any credence and as such the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.Mr. Chatterjee's endeavour was to establish the fact that the deceased was a man of questionable character and had past antecedents including arrests in criminal cases.He had many enemies specially Panu Banu and Ram Singh and the accused appellants were falsely implicated in the case.In support of his contention he drew our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.He pointed out to the evidence of the PW2 and submitted, that it was not possible for the said eye witness to see the incident admittedly from a distance of 15 cubits.According to Mr. Chatterjee, the statement of the said PW2 was also not trustworthy as admittedly the said witness had not disclosed the facts to the investigating officer.Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the credibility of PW3 was doubtful in view of the exaggeration in his statement regarding the alarm raised by those present at the place of occurrence and the aspect of being chased, as these facts were not mentioned before the first investigating officer.He further pointed out that the several contradictions in the evidence of PW3, PW6 and PW5 with regard to the chasing, and firing at Sribas, raised serious doubts.Moreover, the name of PW5 was not mentioned by the other eye witnesses and PW5 was subsequently brought in to strengthen the prosecution case.PW5 did not mention anything to the investigating officer although he deposed elaborately before the court.The statements of PW6 were contradictory to those of the investigating officer as regards the role of Basudeb Ghosh and the attempt of Sakhi Ghosh to fire at him.According to the said witness he 7 had mentioned this to the investigating officer but, the investigating officer categorically denied the fact.Mr. Chatterjee's next contention was that the time of occurrence was not proved.He took us through evidence of PW10 in order to establish that the son of the victim had stated that the incident took place around 1.30 p.m. and not around 3.30 p.m. which was contrary to the statements of the other witnesses as also the FIR.Mr. Chatterjee then pointed out the doubt regarding the time of the occurrence.272. 8Mr. Sudipto Maitra learned Senior Advocate appeared on the behalf of the appellant no.1, 2 and 6 to 10 and submitted that the entire prosecution case had been demolished in view of the delayed forwarding of the FIR to the court, that is, as late as on January 4, 1998 although the incident occured on December 27, 1997 and there was no explanation for the delay.According to him the delay in forwarding the FIR to the court and the absence of the number of the case in the inquest report clearly established that the FIR was ante dated and the prosecution case did not have any legs to stand on.He further stated that the signature on the FIR was not proved by the second investigating officer PW13 as that portion in the exhibit was torn.He also submitted that the FIR which was proved by PW13 bore the number of Dhubulia Police Station Case no. 14 of 1997 instead of 142 of 1997 and as such the prosecution proceeded on a completely different FIR.His next argument was that none of the eye witnesses had signed the inquest report nor did the inquest report bear the number of the case and such deficiencies weakened the prosecution case.On the contrary according to him, the entire case was fabricated in order to implicate the accused appellants.9 According to him although three bullets were fired, two were not recovered and the one handed over by the doctor to the constable after the post mortem was not sent for ballistic report and these lapses in the investigation demolished the prosecution case.The manner of the murder and the murder weapon were thus not proved.According to him, neither the blood stained earth nor the weapons namely pipe gun and sharp cutting knife were seized.Mr. Sudipto Maitra further submitted that there were discrepancies as regards the place of occurrence.According to him PW10 stated that they had assembled in the field and his father had fallen on the ground.PW5 stated that the body was on sagungari field on a road, PW7 stated that the body was near the land of Panu Babu.PW6 stated that 10 to11 persons were standing on the field of Susanto Ghosh.More over according to him, no particular place was mentioned in the FIR.He urged that the eye witnesses PW2, PW3, PW6, PW8 and PW10 gave parrot like statements about the entire incident although most of the statements of the witnesses were not made before the investigation officer (PW12) and as such there was no credibility in the evidence of these witnesses.Mr. Maitra raised a further contention regarding the conduct of the witnesses.According to him PW10 the son of the victim instead of resisting and raising an alarm and trying to fight the miscreants ran away from the place to the house of his uncle without even seeking for medical help.The other eye witnesses also ran away without trying to take the victim to a nearby hospital for some medical help.We also do not find any discrepancy as to the nature of the injury and the nature of murder weapon from the statements of the eye witnesses and the post mortem report.The chronology of the events as mentioned hereinabove and the contents of the inquest report, the FIR and the evidence of the witnesses are consistent and as such the delay in forwarding the FIR to the court does not indicate that the FIR was ante dated or ante timed.The facts are completely distinguishable from this case.The decision of Tarlok Singh (supra) is distinguishable on facts as in that case although, the FIR was lodged at 3:45 p.m. and was sent by a special messenger to the Magistrate at Dasuya at a very close distance, the same was not received until the next morning at about 3 a.m. As such, there was a doubt as to the time of lodging the FIR.The facts of the case in Sukhwant Singh (supra) are different inasmuch as, the prosecution case fell in the absence of examination of the two vital witnesses who were mentioned in the "Rukka" (exhibit 5) inasmuch 15 as, they were the persons who had taken the dead body to the hospital and their evidence was necessary to prove the incident in view of the inordinate delay in dispatching the record to the Magistrate.In Balaka Singh & Ors (supra) the appellants were acquitted as the names of the accused was neither mentioned in inquest report nor in the FIR and the court on the evidence of the eye witnesses found that prosecution case was totally mixed up.With regard to the place of occurrence, the prosecution witnesses, some of whom were also eye witnesses namely PW2, PW3, PW4 (before he was declared hostile), PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW10 have categorically stated that Sambhu Ghosh was murdered and his body was lying on a road near 17 Sagungari field (math).Only PW7 said that the body was lying between the land of Ram Singh and Panu Babu.PW 7 was declared as a hostile witness.With regard to the manner of the murder we find that the version of the defacto complainant PW1, Biren Ghosh, matched with the statements of the eye witnesses.The inquest report mentioned the nature of injury.The post mortem report corroborated that there was bullet injury with one entry and one exit point and there were multiple sharp cut wounds on the lower leg, wrist, ankle, thumb, hand (dorsum) and the little finger was almost amputated.The details of the injuries stated in the post mortem report corroborated the prosecution case as also the testimony of the eye witnesses.With regard to the manner of the murder and the murder weapon, PW2, PW3, PW6, PW8 and PW10 who were all eye witnesses gave an identical version.All of them stated that Sakshi Ghosh fired at Sambhu Ghosh and when Sambhu Ghosh fell down on the ground, the other accused persons Swapan Ghosh, Chandu Ghosh, Hola Ghosh, Badan @ Swarup Ghosh, Paritosh Ghosh and Kapil Ghosh assaulted the victim and started chopping his arms and legs with a 'Ram dao'.With regard to the time of occurrence, all the eye witnesses and PW5 deposed that the murder took place at about 3:00-3:30 p.m. In his testimony, PW10 stated that at about 1:00-1:30 p.m., he along with his father went to the field and when they were returning after observing the crops in the field the incident happened.His statement does not contradict the time of occurrence as stated by the other witnesses because he mentioned the time when they had gone to the field after lunch.From the post mortem report we find that the stomach of the victim contained half digested rice and yellow dal.This finding corroborated the version of PW10 that after lunch at about 1:00-1:30 p.m., he and the victim went to the field to see the crops and on their way back the incident happened.The doctor PW11 deposed that the victim had eaten his meal 2 to 4 hours before his death.The death occurred between 3:00-3:30 p.m. as per the evidence on record.Their common intention was proved.He further testified that he had arrested the accused persons and had also examined the witnesses.On such grounds, the accused was acquitted.With regard to the allegation of discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses, I find that none of the witnesses namely PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW10 (all eye witnesses) were shaken in the cross examination.The FIR (exhibit 1) disclosed that the incident happened at 15:30 hours on December 27, 1997, which was reported to the police at about 16:50 hours.The FIR disclosed the names of all the accused persons and the same was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses.The investigation started without any delay.Statements of a large number of witnesses were recorded on 13-12-1994 itself.Witnesses turned hostile.It is in the aforementioned backdrop, the High Court opined:-If the other witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the incident, why should the investigating officer record their statement falsely if they have not stated so.We find that the mention of Dhubulia Police Station Case no. 14 of 1997 instead of 142 of 1997 in the deposition of PW13 could be a printing mistake and a minor discrepancy.The presence of all the accused appellants were at the place of occurrence and their participation in the incident has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.DW3 and DW4 adduced evidence on behalf of Badal Ghosh.Badal Ghosh has been acquitted.DW1 and DW2 testified on behalf of Basudeb Ghosh but, DW1 said that at around 1:30 p.m. he left school with Basudeb Ghosh, had tea at Bholadas's stall and went home whereas, Basudeb went to Krishnagar market.This testimony does not rule out the presence of Basudeb Ghosh at the place of occurrence.The testimony of DW2 does not reflect that Basudeb Ghosh was not present at the site on the relevant date, at the relevant point of time.Thus, on the basis of the statements of eye witnesses which are corroborated by evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem, the contents of the post mortem report, the statements in the FIR which are all consistent, I come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.The appeals are dismissed.The judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed by the learned court below are upheld.The appellant No.6 Sanyashi Ghosh has since expired.Appellant accused no. 1 Dilu Ghosh, appellant accused no. 2 Chandu Ghosh, appellant accused no. 7 Hola Ghosh, appellant accused No. 8 Kapil Ghosh and appellant accused no. 10 Badan @ Swarup Ghosh are on bail.Copy of this judgment along with the lower Court records be sent down to the trial court immediately.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.
|
['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.
|
68,933,775 |
Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 15.02.2018 rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Ratlam in bail application No.12/2018, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail has been declined.As per prosecution case, on 10.02.2013, one Nagga committed suicide, therefore, Merg No.04/2013 was registered at Police Station Raoti, District-Ratlam.A enquiry was made by the appellant who was posted as A.S.I. at police Station-Raoti and gave a report that Nagga was burnt accidentally.Subsequently, a complaint was made by the Nagubai alleging that on 21.01.2013 one Shanti Bai lodged an FIR against Mohan alleging that he assaulted with intention to molest her and on that basis an offence under Section 354 of I.P.C.was 2 Cr.A. No.2694/2018 Prem Parmar Vs.State of M.P.registered against the Mohan.The Mohan has committed suicide and offence bearing crime No.29/2013 for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. has been registered against the sons of Nagga and the appellant was demanding Rs.4,00,000/- from Nagga for settling the matter.Nagga paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the SHO Rameshchandra Bajheya, but he could not manage to pay the renaming amount demanded by SHO Rameshchandra Bajheya and the appellant and due to persistent demanded and harassment Nagga committed suicide.On this report, an enquiry was ordered and allegations were found prima facie true therefore an offence was registered against the appellant under Section 306, 201, 120-B, of I.P.C.Earlier, the appellant has filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which was registered bearing M.Cr.The appellant was released on anticipatory bail for a period of two weeks.Latter on it was found that the deceased was belongs to the Scheduled Tribes therefore, an offence under Section (3) (2) (v), 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 were also added, and therefore for apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid crime, the appellant filed present appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present crime.The appellant is public servant and there is no apprehension of absconding or fleeing away from 3 Cr.A. No.2694/2018 Prem Parmar Vs.State of M.P.This Court has earlier granted anticipatory bail to the appellant and the appellant has not misued the liberty so granted to him.He is ready to cooperate with the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not necessary.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.He also relied on the judgement passed by the High Court of Madras in the case of Dhivan Vs.Learned public prosecutor has opposed that bail application by contending that the offence under Section (3) (2) (v), 3 (2) (vii) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 has been registered against the appellant and as per provision of 18 of the aforesaid Act there is bar in granting anticipatory bail to the accused person, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.There is a bar in granting the anticipatory bail for the offence registered under provision of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989, hence, no case is made out for grant of bail to the appellant.Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.Cr.A. No.2694/2018 Prem Parmar Vs.Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.05.14 19:45:07 +05'30'
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,935,154 |
as per rules.The first criminal appeal filed by the appellant before this Court was dismissed on merit vide order dated 27/11/2017 passed in Cr.A. No. 4839/2017, Second appeal was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13/07/2018 passed in Cr.A No.2039/2018 and Third appeal was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 19/12/2018 passed in Cr.This Fourth appeal u/S 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assails the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Distt.Gwalior, whereby application preferred by the appellant herein u/S 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.Allegations against the appellant, in short, are that he along with other accused persons, on the basis of 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 2478/2019 forged documents, sold the already sold land to as many as 40 persons including the complainant and received the amount of consideration from them.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer.The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,938,929 |
This Criminal Original petition has been filed by the defacto-complainant to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District in Crl.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the first respondent has registered a case against the second respondent in Crime No.66 of 2009 under Sections 420, 418 of IPC and altered to 418, 420 and 506(i) of IPC and after investigation, he has filed a charge sheet under the aforesaid provisions and based on the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District, has taken a case on file in C.C.No.236/2016 and tried the case.He furtherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 submitted that, at the time of examining the said witness, inadvertently the fixed deposit receipt, which stands in the name of the accused omitted to mark.However it was marked as Ex-P-27, through investigation officer (PW-9).P.C and at that stage only, the petitioner came to know that the said fixed deposit receipt was not marked through PW-7 and hence, he made a request to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to file a petition to recall PW-7, and examine further and accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Crl.He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without considering the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, has mechanically dismissed the said petition.It is submitted that the prosecuting side evidence to be reopened for the purpose of recall the PW7 namely Mr.Sankaran, who worked as a Branch Manager in City Union Bank, Thirumakottai at the time of occurrence.Hence, the petition for reopen the prosecution side evidence and to recall the PW-7 namely Mr.Sankaran.It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order to reopen the prosecution side evidance and pass an order to recall the PW7 namely Mr.Sankaran and the Hon'ble Court may issue summon to the PW-7 namely Mr.Sankaran, and allow this petition and thus render justice.”But for recalling the said witness, he has nothttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 stated any reason.Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.30.10.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order stm ToThe Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumakkottai Police Station, Thiruvarur District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.RAJAMANICKAM., J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,940,443 |
(i) Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.1702 of 2018 isallowed;(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with CRNo.389 of 2016 registered by Dadar Police Station, the applicant bereleased on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-with one or more sureties in the like amount;(iii) The applicant shall report the Investigating Officer of DadarPolice Station once in a week on every Saturday between 10 a.m.and 12 noon till filing of charge sheet;(iv) Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.1702 of 2018 isdisposed off.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,942 |
The facts are briefly these:The workshop of the Return Stores.Depot, Alamadhi, was under the control of a European Officer by name Lieut.C J. Wince, who has been demobilised and has returned to England now.The petitioner used to put up papers, for orders, to Lieut.The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioner is that he, being a public servant, in or about August 1946, accepted Rs. 100 (besides fruits for Rs. 5) from one R.K. Parasuraman, P.W. 5, as illegal gratification, as reward for exercising his official favours to P.W. 5 and 21 other tent-menders of Bangalore group, viz., for recommending to Lieut.Wince their retention in their jobs at R.S.D.; Alamadhi, despite a retrenchment discharge notice served on them; and that on 22nd August, 1946, he accepted a gold ring, M.O. 2, worth Rs. 35-7-6, from one Avadi Krishnan, P.W. 8, as illegal gratification, as a. reward for exercising his official favours to P.W. 8 and other tent-menders of the--' non-Bangalore group, namely, for recommending to Lieut.Wince their retention in their jobs at R.S.D., Alamadhi, despite a retrenchment discharge notice served on them; and that in the same month he accepted Rs. 10 from one, C. Gangadaram, P.W. 9, through P.W. 3, as illegal gratification, as a reward for exercising.his official favours to P.W. 9, viz., the recommendation to Lieut.Wince for his retention.in his A grade job at R. S. D., Alamadhi, in spite of a notice retrenching him from.A grade and subsequently entertaining him in the III grade.ORDER Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.Wince and was in the eyes of illiterate coolies, like P.Ws. 3 to 9, a man of great influence with that officer.Wince received an anonymous petition against the petitioner which finally started the enquiry against the petitioner.He only raised three contentions.Thus, many illegal cesses imposed by, and given willing to, a zamindar have been set aside even though they are clothed in gorgeous terms as " Kanikka ", or voluntary gift, nazars, marriage presents, etc. Many a payment has been held to be illegal gratification, though it has been joyfully given to the corrupt officer and is called a gift given in gratitude, mamool or by other euphemistic terms.A bribe, as distinguished from an extortion, is always voluntary.When the petitioner promised to recommend them, and when they gave the money and the ring, there was an implied bargain for, and fulfilment of an illegal gratification transaction, despite the euphemistic term " mariyada" used.I, therefore, find against the first contention.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,946,177 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2019, on the file of the second respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in1/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17423 of 20192.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant, namely, Saveetha loved each other.At that time, the petitioner gave promise to marry her, but, now the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant.Therefore, the defacto complainant consuming poison.Hence the complaint.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the official respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.11.2019 dashttp://www.judis.nic.in5/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17423 of 20191.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in6/7 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17423 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.das CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17423 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.10269 of 2019
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,636,447 |
That person informed him that he is leaving and threatened him that he and his father will certainly identify him, when they would meet next and thereafter he left the Bus.Bus reached Beohari and was leaving for Rewa at about 10.25 a.m., the Police at the Beohari Road intercepted the Bus and abused the complainant with obscene words.The accused persons threatened him to implicate in such offences, that he will not be able to come out.Holding his colar, abusing him, kicking him, got him down from the bus.He was beaten.He was carrying Rs.7000/- in his pocket.When he was going to report the matter to SDO(P), Beohari, he was again threatened, therefore, complainant again lodged a report.He was then allowed to leave with the empty bus.The petitioner preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to invoke the extraordinary jurisdciton of this Court and to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No.08/2009 (Brij Kishore Sharma vs. S.N.Singh and others), pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beohari for offences under sectioms 392, 294, 323, 506-II, 166, 167, 327, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sessions Trial No.257/2009, pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol for offences under sections 394, 294, 506-II read with section 120-B and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code].The complaint case filed by the respondent, in brief, is that the petitioner-Shrinath Singh was the T.I. of Police Station, Beohari.R.N.Sharma, Jagjiwan Singh and Sushil Kumar were working as Assistant Sub Inspectors, Constable and Head Constable of the Police Station, Beohari respectively at the relevant time.The complainant-Brij Kishore Sharma is the conductor of Ramgopal Satyanarayan Bus Service.It is alleged that the complainant was going in Bus No.MP-17- A/4703 from Rewa to Anuppur on 14.1.2009, at about 10.00 a.m. When the Bus reached Shahdol by-pass near Ban Ganga, it stopped for passengers to get down and board the Bus.A person boarded the Bus and stated that he has to travel upto Beohari and he wanted to sit in the front seat.When the complainant said that all seats are booked, therefore, he can sit on the rear side, he identified hismelf as T.I. of Police Station, Beohari.He abused him by obscene words and said that he will see that the bus does not go upto Beohari.The complainant requested him to sit on the conductor's seat as he could not identify him, for he was not in his official uniform.The fitness papers and other related papers of the bus were taken away.Rajendra Prasad @ Rajjan Halwai of Beohari was present at the time of offence.The cleaner-Arvind Kumar and the driver-Ramanuj also tired to save him.They allowed the passengers of the bus to go and directed to refund the money to the passengers.Rs.2250/- were given by Rajjan Halwai.The complainant was falsely involved in the case of Motor Vehciles Act. Receipt No.10757/46 dated 14.1.2009 was issued by the Assistant Sub Inspector-R.N.Sharma.The accused persons abused him by obscene words and threatened him.Due to fear, the complainant kept quiet.On 07.2.2009, RTO, Rewa replied to the letter dated 05.2.2009 and informed that the said vehicle (MP-17-A/4703) was not having valid permit.It was found that the tax of the vehicle was due to the extent of Rs.66,524/-.The vehicle ealier was plying on the basis of an agreement with the Road Transport Corporation.But the period had also exhausted.He placed reliance on an order dated 17.9.2009 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2070/2008 [Bhupendra Singh vs. Heeralal] wherein the petitioner-Bhupendra Singh, Station House Officer at Police Station, Gurh, District Rewa was prosecuted without sanction as contemplated under section 197 of Cr.P.C., such proceedings were quashed.Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed.The order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beohari is set aside.The Sessions Trial No.257/2009 against the petitioner is quashed.It is clarified that the complainant is at liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority to obtain the sanction.If the sanction is accorded, he is at liberty to continue the proceedings.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,642,099 |
Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the official respondents submits that the petitioner's complaint dated August 03, 2015 was looked into and Titagarh Police Station F.I.R. No. 609 of 2015 dated August 21, 2015 under Sections 323/325/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,642,236 |
Item No. 53And In the matter of: Joy Majhi & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Sudip Guha For the Petitioners Mr. Suman Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No.688 of 2013 dated 10.10.2013 under sections 376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is not pressed on behalf of the Petitioner No.1, Joy Majhi, as he has already been enlarged on bail after being arrested.His application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected as 'not pressed'.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,645,806 |
The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR No.235/2004 registered at P.S. Seema Puri, at the instance of the 2nd respondent-BSES Yamuna Power Limited on the allegation that on an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner had indulged in the theft of electricity and, therefore, he was liable to be punished under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (now, Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,653,539 |
1.These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th January 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge in Corruption Case No. 78 of 1998, convicting the accused/Appellants for the offence under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 25/27 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1955 (IT Act).Additionally, Fahim Ahmed Abbassi (A-1) [the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. (Crl.A) 142 of 2010], Ashok Kumar (A-2) [the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 141 of 2010] and Mehmood Ahmed (A-3) [the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 140 of 2010] were convicted for substantive offence under Section 420 IPC and Jharkhandi Rai (A-5) [the Appellant in Crl.139 of 2010]was convicted for substantive offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and Section 25/27 of the IT Act.At the time of admission of these appeals, the sentences awarded to the Appellants were directed to remain suspended.The case of the prosecutionThe case of the prosecution was that a written complaint was filed by Mr. S.K. Peshin, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Branch (ACB)(PW-21) on 10th January 1995 stating that a surprise check was conducted at F- 18/8, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, in the presence of certain officials of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) and two independent witnesses to verify allegations regarding an ISD/STD racket being operated by some private persons in connivance with some officials of the MTNL, Okhla Telephone Exchange (OTE).During the course of the surprise check, two telephone numbers 6822682 and 6822683 were found installed in the said premises.The availability of ISD/STD facility on the said telephones was verified by the MTNL vigilance staff in the presence of the independent witnesses.It was revealed that two telephones were sanctioned in the name of Mr. Ayub Ali, resident of 337, B-1, Batla House and Mr. Mohd. Irfan, resident of D-40, Batla House respectively.Both the telephones were said to have been clandestinely shifted to18/8,Batla House in active connivance with Faheem Ahmed (A-1), Jharkhandi Rai (A-5)who was a regular mazdoor with MTNL, OTE and some other unknown employees of MTNL.At the time of checking, Ashok Kumar (A-2) Mehmood Ahmed (A-3) were found providing STD/ISD facility to various parties at cheap rates causing substantial loss to the MTNL.According to the prosecution, on further investigations and on perusing the official records of the MTNL, it was revealed that aforementioned two Crl.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 4 of 16 telephone connections were sanctioned on the deposit of Rs.30,000 on each telephone in the Tatkal category. A-1 and A-2 had got prepared on 9th September 1994 two bank drafts of Rs.30,000 from the Central Bank of India, Jamia Milia Branch in favour of MTNL.Two draft applications were submitted in the fictitious names of Ayub Ali and Mohd. Irfan after OBs were issued to both the telephones.A-5 was deputed to install the telephone lines at the addresses given in OBs.The ISD facility on both the telephones was obtained by A-2 and A-3 with the assistance of Shabban (A-4) [the Appellant in Crl.A. No.138 of 2010] who obtained forged attestations on the applications.(i) There were two independent witnesses namely Raj Kumar (PW-4) and PW-6 both from Delhi Development Authority (DDA), who were part of the raiding party.The third charge specific to A- 5 is for installing the two telephones illegally at an address other than those mentioned in the OBs, thus, committing the offence punishable under Sections 25/27 of the IT Act. The fourth charge is again specific to A-5 for abusing his official position and diverting the two telephones to an address used by A-1, A-2 and A-3unauthorisedly, thus committing the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) (d) of the PC Act.The role that A-5 played in getting the two telephones installed at F- 18/8, Batla House requires to be examined first.A-5 was admittedly a regular mazdoor with the MTNL.Mr. M.L. Kochhar (PW-2), Divisional Engineer with the MTNL who was part of the team that had conducted the surprise check at F-18/8, Batla House on 10th January 1995, explained in his cross-examination the procedure involved in processing the applications for telephone connections.Mr. K.K. Nayyar, Assistant Vigilance Officer, MTNL (PW-8), was also part of the raiding team.He stated that the two telephone numbers were found installed at F-18/8, Batla House which was a house under construction.They found A-2 and A-3 present at the spot.In their presence the equipments were seized.The STD/ISD facility from the numbers was confirmed by making calls to Jammu and United States of America.The printout of the calls were obtained from the OTE and handed over to the CBI.PW-18 further stated:"The lineman or the regular mazdoor then checks the bonafide of the subscriber.Then, he gets filled the performa prescribed by the department which is called annexure-A. This annexure A, inter alia, contains that he is a bonafide consumer of the telephone.Both the copies of the performa annexure A is returned to the JTO.The JTO issued jumper letter for allotment of the telephone number and opening of the said number to the record section.The record section again verifies the bonafide of the subscriber on a clip test Crl.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 10 of 16 position of the exchange after installation of the telephone.19.11.2014 Crl.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 2 of 16 IntroductionA. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 2 of 16These appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 8th February 2010 whereby all the Appellants were awarded one years rigorous imprisonment (RI) along with a fine of Rs.10,000each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for two months for the offence under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and an identical sentence for the offence under Section 25/27 of the IT Act. Fahim Ahmed Abbassi, Ashok Kumar and Mehmood Ahmad were awarded two years RI with a fine of Rs.40,000 each and in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 420 IPC.Jharkhandi Rai was awarded two years RI along with a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 3 of 16The non-payment of bills raised by the MTNL in respect of aforementioned telephone numbers for the period from 21st September 1994 to 10th January 1995 was to the tune of Rs.41,66,176 (for telephone number 6822683) and Rs.37,66,622 (for telephone number 6822682) respectively.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 4 of 16As many as twenty eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.In their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the accused denied the evidence and claimed to be falsely implicated.In the impugned judgment, the trial Court, on an analysis of the evidence came to the following conclusions:They had described what transpired at the time of the raid.The failure to associate any other public witness from the spot could not lead to any adverse inference being drawn.(ii) The testimony of the officers of the CBI could not be rejected only because they belonged to the police force.(iii) A-2 and A-3 had voluntarily given their specimen signatures in the office of the CBI on 12th January 1995 in the presence of independent witnesses.PW-20 also supported the case of the prosecution in this regard.The writings on the application for telephone No. 6822682 (Ex.PW-23/C) and the application in respect of the telephone No. 6822682 were proved by PW-23 to be those of A-It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that "A-2 was involved in this deal".(v) It was proved in the evidence of Majid Ali (PW-16) and Mohd.Islam (PW-11) that A-4 had taken the two applications for attestations on which rubber stamps of Mrs. Mohini Anjum(PW-1) were affixed.Those attestations on the applications were proved to be false and fictitious.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 6 of 16(vi) The evidence of S.K. Peshin (PW-21) and Jai Raj (PW-22) showed that at the relevant time, A-5 along with PW-22 had visited the Batla House for installation of the two telephone connections and that it was A-5 who had verified the address of the premises where the phones were to be installed.(vii) Although PW-22 turned hostile, he supported the case of the prosecution regarding A-5 having verified the address of the premises where the phones were to be installed.(viii) The conspiracy could be inferred from the circumstances.In the present case the evidence led to the inference that a conspiracy was hatched by the accused with A-5 to have two telephones in the name of non-existent persons installed at F-18/8, Batla House for illegally running a PCO Booth and providing ISD/STD facility.The trial court convicted the Appellants for the offence aforementioned and sentenced them in the manner noted hereinabove.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R.M. Tufail, learned counsel for the Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.138,140,141and 142 of 2010, Ms. Anupama Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant in Crl. A.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 7 of 16No.139 of 2010 and Mr. Narender Mann, learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of 16 number used to be issued which was given to the Inspector for verification of the spot.Any field officer like JTO/TTA/ or Phone Inspector used to furnish the report after installation of the telephone connection to subscriber certifying the place of installation".A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of 16Mr. S.C. Duggal, Assistant General Manager (Law) MTNL (PW-7), was part of the raiding team.He stated in his cross-examination that he was not a technical person and only a Divisional Engineer could explain whether the exchange to which two telephones were connected was an electronic exchange or a cross bar exchange.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of 16 Inspector were the competent authority who after verification of the address of the subscribers issued the OBs.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of 16The other mazdoor, who is supposed to have gone along with A-5 for installation of the two telephones, was Jairaj (PW-22) who was a regular mazdoor at the OTE.He, however, did not support the case of the prosecution.When confronted with his previous statement (Ex. PW- 22/A), he claimed that the CBI did not record his statement.After this verification by the record section, another number letter is issued to the switch room for opening of the telephone number.One copy of the jumper letter is issued to the switch room for opening of the telephone number.One copy of the jumper letter is sent to main distribution frame staff for jumpering of the telephone number of the cable pair allotted to the subscriber.Record section after verifying the number opened from the subscriber through telephone send the initial meter reading and the done copy of the account officer for processing the billing against the telephone.I can identify signatures of Baljore Singh on seizure memo Ex. PW18/A which is signed by Baljore Singh at point A. I can identify his signatures as I have seen him writing and signing.Through this memo, the documents were handed over to the CBI."A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 10 of 16The learned trial Court has relied on the answers given by PW-22 in his cross-examination that it was A-1 who had verified the address and he had accompanied A-1 to Batla House for installation of telephones.That still somehow does not prove the conspiracy between A-1 and other accused.Further, in the entire hierarchy of the MTNL with decisions being taken at various levels as explained by the witnesses from the MTNL it is difficult to believe that A-1 could in his official capacity take decisions on his own to instal a telephone line without anyone else in the organization being involved.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 11 of 16There is a similar set of documents (Ex.PW- 23/Q and Ex. PW-23/R) in respect of the other telephone number 6822283 in the name of Mohd. Irfan.Both were under the tatkal system.Importantly, there are documents to show that a sum of Rs. 30,000 each was in by demand draft for both the tatkal connections.What, however, is not clear is who was actually involved in the verification of the addresses and issuance of the OB letters, which were then purportedly handed over to PW-1 and PW-23 for installation of the telephones.A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy."A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 12 of 16In the present case too there are bits and pieces of evidence in the which somehow do not add up to conclusively prove the guilt of A-5 for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) PC Act or even to prove beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy between the accused.The role of A-1, A-2 and A-3It has been urged by Mr. Mann, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), that the fact that the handwritings on the application forms have been proved by the handwriting expert (PW-23) to belong to Ashok Kumar and the fact that Ashok Kumar was found present at the premises where the two telephones were installed and the notebook recovered from the spot contained writings of A-1, A-2 and A-3 were sufficient to prove the conspiracy between them and A-1to cause losses to the MTNL by installing two telephones in the names of fictitious persons, at fictitious addresses.In this regard, it should be noticed that the mere fact that the installation of telephones at a place different from the one indicated in the application forms might itself not complete the requirement for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.It requires many more personnel of the MTNL other than A-5 to process the application and install a telephone.However, for reasons best known to the CBI, they were not identified and proceeded against.While the handwriting experts opinion as regards the writings on the application forms being that of A-2 might be of corroborative value that cannot constitute substantive evidence for the offence of cheating or conspiracy between the different accused.The prosecution has no doubt proved that a raid was conducted at the Crl.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of 16 premises at F-8/18 Batla House in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., PWs 4 and 6 and that they found the two telephones installed.They found A-2 and A-3 present there.Some documents and diaries were seized.However, the above evidence by itself is hardly sufficient to prove that there was a conspiracy between the three accused to cause loss to the MTNL.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of 16The principal charge was that A-1 was providing telephone services to customers based in Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries and the house where the instruments were installed belonged to his sister.However, no documents were recovered during investigation to connect A-1 with the premises in question.The most important element of a loss being caused to MTNL as a result of the two telephones being installed has not been conclusively proved by producing records to show that the bills raised remained unpaid.In response to a question put to him in cross-examination, PW-8 stated as under:A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of 16 the raid.A perusal of the bills shows that they are handwritten giving just the rent and total call charges.There is nothing to indicate that these bills were in fact raised and sent at the addresses given for the subscribers of the telephones, which were subsequently returned undelivered.The critical element of showing the loss to the MTNL was this important evidence, and if, indeed, the bill pertained to the calls made from these two telephones, the complete breakdown of the bills had to be shown with reference to how many calls were made on STD and ISD basis.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of 16This gives the list of the calls made on 10th January 1995 and shows the details of the calls made between 9:44 am to 10:51 am in respect of telephone No.26822682 and for the other telephone between the same times.It is also not understood why the crucial details of the actual dispatch of the bill and it being returned undelivered, since the addresses were fictitious, was not proved by the prosecution.The other factor is that the statement was recorded more than three years later.Why this angle was not investigated for more than three years is again not known.The chargesheet was filed only on 5 th August 1998 and there was sufficient time for CBI to have gathered these details.The role of A-4The involvement of A-4 is sought to be established through the evidence of Prof. Mohini Anjum (PW-1), Mohd. Islam (PW-11) and Crl.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of 16 Majid Ali (PW-16).It is not clear who forged the signature of PW-1 in those applications.This circumstance, by itself, is insufficient to hold in A-4 as being part of the conspiracy to cause financial loss to the MTNL for the installation of two telephones.A. No. 138/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of 16
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,666 |
The appellant, who was the Officiating Regional Transport Officer, Bombay Region, was on the 29th May, 1951, at about 9.30 P.M., proceeding in his jeep car towards the Colaba Bus Stand when he knocked down three persons, Mrs. Savitribai Motwani, her husband and Miss Parvatibai Abhichandani.The police arrested the appellant and took him to then police station.From the police station he was taken to St. George's Hospital in order to be examined by the doctor for alleged consumption of liquor.The doctor found his breath smelling of alcohol.He also filed a written statement on the 13th March, 1952, setting out in detail the whole history of his case.He stated there that owing to his ill health he had been recommended to take tonics, specially those containing vitamin B Complex and Phosphates and had regularly taken tonics, such as Wampole's Phospho Lecitin, B. G. Phos, and Huxley's Nerve Vigour.He further stated that on the night in question he had at about 9 or 9.15 P.M. after dinner taken a does of B. G. Phos and was proceeding in his jeep car for a drive via Cuffee Parade and Marine Drive when the accident took place.He produced his driving licence and registration certificate and a copy of the agenda of the Regional Transport Authority's meeting to be held next day and a certain of B. G. Phos on which it was stated that is contained 17 per cent.alcohol according to its formula.He was arrested by the police and taken to the police station and then to St. George's Hospital.The doctor found his breath smelling of alcohol, conjunctiva congested, pupils semi-dilated and reacting to light, and speech coherent.He could behave himself and walk along a straight line.JUDGMENT Bhagwati, J.He however found the conjunctiva were congested, the pupils were semi-dilated and reacting to light.The speech was coherent and he could behave himself and walk along a straight line.The learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant of both these offences.In regard to the offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act he observed that the evidence did not go to show conclusively that the appellant had consumed alcohol without a permit, that there were certain medicinal preparations which were allowed to be used by law and there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the appellant had not consumed those tonics but only liquor for which he ought to have a permit.The respondent, the State of Bombay, took two appeals before the High Court against each of these two cases.In the result, appeal has to be dismissed subject to this modification.On the 29th May, 1951, at about 9-30 P.M., while proceeding in his jeep towards Colaba Bus Stand, he knocked down three persons.The State of Bombay appealed against the acquittal order to the High Court.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,675,444 |
The postmortem report dated 27.11.2012 revealed that she died due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.The relatives including her parents have stated that the petitioner/accused has teased her and insulted her by gesture intended to insult her modesty, because of which, she committed suicide.After the investigation, police Silwani District-Raisen filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC.Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner by the order impugned.Considered the above submissions and perused the record.Deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging as per the postmortem report.The statements of parents and other relatives of the deceased indicate that the deceased was being teased and criminally intimidated and was harassed that she committed suicide leaving a suicide note.The alleged suicide note was sent for examination to handwriting expert.The State Examiner of the Questioned Documents, Government of Madhya Pradeseh, Bhopal by it's letter dated 12.5.2014 admitted that the handwriting of the deceased was tallied with the suicide note and on the basis of the examination, it is opined that there is different authorship.A. Penal Code, 1980- Ss.306 & 107 - Abetment of suicide - Quashment of charge - When warranted - Appellant not named in FIRB. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 306 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients of offence, reiterated - Temperament of person committing suicide - Relevance - Deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive - Human sensitivity of each individual differs - Different people behave differently in same situation.Keeping in view the above circumstances, the present petition is allowed.The charge framed against the petitioner is set aside.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,737,362 |
Heard on the question of admission.Perused the record of Court below.Also heard on IA No.13625/20198, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant-Suresh Vishwakarma.The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Section 506-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.On perusal of the FSL report of the prosecutrix, it emerges out that human semen was found from the undergarments of the prosecutrix.List this matter for final hearing in due course.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.02.02 12:11:32 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,741,019 |
The Superintendent of PoliceCoimbatore Rural DistrictCoimbatoreHeard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents pertaining to the impugned charge memo dated 21.03.2006 made in Na.J1/PR 29/2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1994, while he was serving at Ramanathapuram and he was subsequently promoted as Head Constable in the year 1999 at Coimbatore.The petitioner has further stated that he has received 11 rewards and has not come to any adverse notice.He married one Devagi of Namakkal District, during the year 1986 and has got one son and a daughter at the age of 15 and 12 respectively, through her, on the date of filing of the writ petition.The petitioner has further stated that he obtained anticipatory bail on 14.03.2005 and also came out on bail.After the Trial, the case ended in acquittal, however, the respondents initiated departmental proceeding whereby two charges were framed against the petitioner that he had harassed his wife demanding dowry and living with another woman during the subsistence of the marriage with the said defacto complainant Devagi.J1/P.R.29/2006, under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 hereinafter referred to as TNPSS (D&A) Rules, against the petitioner herein and placed him under suspension on the date of the order.The petitioner's wife Devagi had been examined as PW1, however, as per the findings, she has not stated anything about the alleged illegal intimacy with another woman and no other witness was examined to establish the allegation that the petitioner was living with some other woman against law.In fact the defacto complainant, PW1 has not stated that the petitioner had threatened her with weapon or orally so as to create fear in the mind of the said witness.On the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the alleged guilt against the petitioner punishable under Section 506 Part II IPC was not established by the prosecution.It is an admitted fact that the charge memo was issued by the respondents, only based on the criminal case registered against the petitioner and the case had been registered on the complaint given by his wife, who was examined as PW1 before the Judicial Magistrate.vga2006 dated 21.03.2006 is quashed.No order as to costs.Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.The Deputy Superintendentof Police, District Crime Branch,CoimbatoreW.P. No.24113 of 2006
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
687,413 |
The Junagadh Board proceeded with the enquiry; in that enquiry opponent No. 6 admitted at the dues of the petitioner.The Board at Junagadh, by an order passed by it on the 28th September 1956, which order was passed without calling upon the petitioner to explain the items, disallowed certain items.Upon the award being given by the Junagadh Board, the petitioner filed an appeal, No. 237 of 1955 from the award.The appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Sorath.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,743,783 |
Petitioner challenges the orders on the ground that though the conditions precedent required to be satisfied for an action under section 5 of the Adhiniyam having not been fulfilled, yet an order of externment is passed.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,746,191 |
3. Leave granted.The spinal issue that has spiralled to this Court is whether theappeal preferred by the Government questioning the legal substantiality ofthe judgment of acquittal could have been dismissed by the High Court insuch a manner as it has been done.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,751,449 |
It was also ordered that in case convict does not pay the amount of fine then he will under go the Additional imprisonment for six months.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant Paras lodged the written complaint at Police Station Nauchandi, Meerut on 03.08.1997 at 02:15 am with the allegations that on 02.08.1997 at about 11.00 pm he alongwith his mother and brother-in-law Rajkumar went to the house of Smt. Bilas and saw that his brother-in-law Ashwani Kumar set his sister on fire with the intention to kill her after pouring the kerosine on her.They saved Bilas and admitted her in the hospital they caught hold of his brother-in-law Ashwani Kumar on the spot.Bilas and he saved Smt. Bilas.Bilas was not much burned.He alongwith his landlord took Bilas to the hospital.Due to enimity he is falsely implicated in this case.After marriage his wife and the his-in-laws were pressurising him to reside with them and due to this enimity he is falsely implicated in this case.PW1 Paras is the complainant, brother of deceased Bilas as well as the eye witness of the occurance.In his statement he has stated that on 02.08.1997 at about 11:00pm he alongwith his mother and brother-in-law Rajkumar (Bahnoi) went to the house of accused Ashwani Kumar to give the prasad of Shivratri.When they knocked the door of Ashwani Kumar, it was not oppened then they peeped from the window and saw that accused Ashwani Kumar is setting his sister on fire after pouring the kerosine on her.His sister also raised alarm then landlord of the house also reached there then Ashwani Kumar tried to run away but he was caught hold on the spot by them.This witness has proved the written report.After eight days Bilas expired.Inquest report was prepared and this witness also proved the inquest report.PW2 Rajkumar who is the husband of the sister of accused Ashwani Kumar's wife is also examined by the prosecution as eye witness.He has also supported the prosecution version and stated that at about 11:00 PM he alongwith Paras and his mother-in-law Shravarna Rani saw the accused Ashwani Kumar pouring kerosine on Bilas and setting her on fire.PW3 Dr. N. K. Sharma prepared the injury report of Smt. Bilas on 03.08.1997 at 02.50am.PW6 R. B. Dixit prepared the inquest report of Smt. Bilas and he proved the inquest report.PW7 Rais Ul-hasan Zafari is the Investigating Officer and he prepared the site plan Ka-4 and recorded the statement of the witnesses.Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan, J.)We have heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav (amicus curiea) learned counsel for appellant and Sri Syd Ali Murtuza, learned A.G.A.This appeal is filed by convict appellant Ashwani Kumar through Senior Supretendent Jail against the judgment dated 15.03.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 6, Meerut in S.T. No.1476 of 1997 State vs. Ashwani Kumar under Section 302, IPC, Police Station - Nauchandi, District - Meerut.On the basis of this written complaint of Paras FIR was lodged and the case was registered at the police station.During the treatment Smt. Bilas died on 08.08.1997 in the medical college Meerut at about 11:35pm.Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the chargesheet against Ashwani Kumar under section 302 IPC.5. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against accused Ashwani Kumar by Session Court he denied it and demanded trial.To prove its case, Prosecution examined seven witnesses in all, viz. PW1 Paras Kumar, PW2 Rajkumar and PW3 Dr. N. K. Sharma, PW4 Arvind Singh Hayanki, PW5 Swaraj Singh, PW6 R.B. Dixit S.I., PW7 Rais Ul hasan Zafari, S.I. And PW8 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Awasthi.The statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Accused denied the version of prosecution and stated that kerosine lamp was lighting at about 11:30pm.All of sudden he heard the cry of Smt.In his statement, he said that there were wounds of burning on the neck, face, on both side of chest, stomach and thigh of Bilas and the smell of kerosine was also present on the body of Smt. Bilas.PW3 stated that there is the probability of inflecting these injuries on the body of Smt. Bilas on 02.08.1997 at about 11:00 pm 65 percent body of Smt. Bilas was burned.This witness also stated that Smt. Bilas told her that her husband has set her on fire after pouring the kerosine on her.PW4 Arvind Singh Hayanki the City Magistrate recorded the dying decleration statement of Smt. Bilas on 03.08.1997 at 04:00am.PW5 Swaraj Singh has written the Check Report on the basis of written complaint.He recovered the container of the kerosine and burnt salwar suit of Smt. Bilas and the matchbox and matchstick.After conducting the investigation, he filed the chargesheet and proved the chargesheet Exhibit Ka 15 in his statement.PW8 Sri Ramesh Chandra Awasthi prepared the Post mortem Examination Report of Smt. Bilas on 09.08.1997 at P. L. Sharma hospital.He proved that during examination he found the wounds of burning on the face, neck, abdomin, back, chest and thighs.In his opinion the cause of death was septicemia due to burning.Statement of accused under section 313 was recorded.In the defence accused examined DW-1 Vijay Kumar, who is the resident of the house of Pushpa which is in front of the house of Virendra in which Ashwani Kumar was a tenant.This witness stated that on 02.08.1997 the house of Ashwani Kumar caught fire.Ashwani Kumar came out of the house and raised alarm of "Bachao Bachao" .He alongwith Ashwani Kumar put out fire of Smt. Bilas.Ashwani Kumar did not set Smt. Bilas on fire.Ashwani Kumar also sustained the burn injury in his hand in rescuing Bilas.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that presence of prosecution witness P.W.1 Paras and P.W.2 Rajkumar at 11:00 pm at the residence of accused Ashwani Kumar is highly improbable, which creates doubt on the prosecution case.We disagree with this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant because the presence of PW1 Paras and PW2 Rajkumar is not improbable at the time of occurance because they are not stranger, PW1 Paras is the brother-in-law (Sala) of accused Ashwani Kumar and PW2 Raj Kumar is the husband of the sister of accused Ashwani Kumar's wife.PW1 in his cross examination clarified it that he is resident of Punshil colony and his elder brother-in-law PW2 Rajkumar resides in Nehru Nagar.There is only the distance of two lane between his house and the hourse of P.W.2 Rajkumar.Accused Ashwani Kumar and PW2 Raj Kumar resides in the same lane.The house of Rajkumar is near about only 22 to 25 yards away from the house of Ashwani Kumar.Paras in his statement also stated that on 02.08.1997 at 11:00 pm he alongwith his mother Swarna and elder brother-in-law Rajkumar went to the house of Ashwani Kumar to give Prasad of Shivratri.Both witnesses PW1 Paras and PW2 are closely related to the accused Ashwani Kumar and residents of the same locality.Under such circumstances, it is highly probable that at 11:00 am they went to the house of Ashwani Kumar to give Prasad of Shivratri on 02.08.1997 and saw the occurance.The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW-1 Paras and PW-2 Rajkumar are also closely related to the deceased Smt. Bilas, therefore, their testimony is not credible.These both rulling applies to the facts of this case.Learned couonsel for the appellant argued that as per prosecution case, the landlord Virendra also reached at the time of occurance but he is not examined by the prosecution who was the independent witness.This creates doubt on the prosecution case.These rulings applies on the fact of this case.Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that PW-4 Arvind Singh Hayanki in his statement has admitted that he recorded the dying decleration statement of Smt. Bilas on 03.08.1997 at 04.30 am and he sent this statement of Bilas on 07.08.1997 to the Court of CJM Meerut.Thus keeping of this dying decleration statement in the custody for the four days by PW-4 City Magistrate Arvind Kumar Hayanki makes the dying decleration doubtful.This statement of Smt. Bilas shows that Ashwani Kumar did not set Smt. Bilas on fire, he has simply thrown the matchstick on Smt. Bilas.This argument of learned counsel for the appellant does not help the accused / appellant because the statement of any witness is to be read as a whole and a part of statement cannot be taken into consideration excluding other parts of the statement.In the dying decleration itself in the three line below Smt. Bilas has stated ''mlds }kjk Mkys x;s frYyh ls esjs diM+s esa vkx yx xbZ eSaus vius ifr dks idM+us dh dksf'k'k dh vkSj 'kksj epk;k''.Thus if we read the dying decleration statement of Smt. Bilas as a whole then it reveals that she has stated in her dying decleration statement that her husband set her on fire.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the dying decleration Smt. Bilas has stated that '' jkr esa FkIiM+ ekjdj mUgksaus eq>ij feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fn;k vkSj dgk fd esa frYyh Mkydj tk jgk gWw rqe ty tkuk vkSj ;g dgdj og lkbfdy ysdj pyk x;k''.This statement of Smt. Bilas in his dying decleration statement falsifies this version of the prosecution that accused was caught hold on the spot by the complainant and his companions was produced at the police station at the time of lodging of the FIR.On the other hand, this statement of deceased supports the version of the accused that he tried to save Smt. Bilas and took her to the hospital.This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is against the evidence available on the record.Smt. Bilas in her statement has also said that matchstick thrown by her husband set her on fire, she tried to caught her husband and raised alarm.Thus, this statement of Smt. Bilas makes it clear that at the time of occurance accused Ashwani Kumar was present on the spot and this statement of Smt. Bilas is in the corroboration of the statement of PW-1 that after setting Bilas on fire when Ashwani Kumar tried to run away then they caught hold of Ashwani Kumar.The fact that accused Ashwani was caught hold by the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 on the spot and took her to the police station is also supported by the FIR which is prompt and also by the GD, in which it is mentioned that at the time of lodging of the FIR accused Ashwani Kumar was brought to the police station by the complainant.25. Accused in his statement under section 313 has stated that he tried to put off the fire of Smt. Bilas and in its consequence he got the burned injuries on his hand.DW-1 has also in his statement said that Ashwani Kumar tried to put off the fire of Bilas and in this course he got burned injuries on his hand but this fact is not corroborated by any medical evidence as there is no injury report on the record to show that the accused Ashwani Kumar has sustained any kind of injuries on his hand.26. DW-1, who is not the family member of accused or complainant, in his statement has no where said that he entered in that room where Smt. Bilas was set on fire thus the statement of DW-1 is not reliable to establish that Ashwani Kumar did not set Smt. Bilas on fire and Ashwani Kumar tried to put off the fire of Smt. Bilas.This shows that accused Ashwani Kumar and DW-1 are telling lie that Ashwani Kumar tried to put off fire of Smt. Bilas and Ashwani Kumar did not burn Bilas by pouring kerosine on her and litting the fire.Ashwani Kumar in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. said that he took Smt. Bilas to the hospital and on the basis of this statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the appellant argued that this version of the prosecution is false that accused Ashwani Kumar was arrested on the spot .This fact and argument are against documentary evidence available on the file because in the injury report of Smt. Bilas prepared by Dr. N. K. Sharma on 03.08.1997 at 02:50 am.It is mentioned that Smt. Bilas is brought to the hospital by her mother Swarna Rani and nowhere it is mentioned that Ashwani took Bilas to the hospital.In this case dying decleration statement of Smt. Bilas is recorded twice.Firstly, by Dr. N. K. Sharma when she is brought to the hospital on 03.08.1997 at 02:50 am.While examining her injuries.Smt. Bilas told Dr. N. K. Sharma that she has received burn injuries when her husband sprinkled kerosine on her and lit the fire.PW-3 has recorded this fact in injury report also.PW-3 Dr. N. K. Sharma has also corroborated this fact in his statement.P.W-3 Dr. N. K. Sharma has also stated that when she told her this fact at that time she was conscious.Second time the dying decleration statement of Smt. Bilas is recorded by PW-4 (City Magistrate, Arvind Kumar Hayanki) on 03.08.1997 at about 04:30 A.M. PW4 Arvind Kumar Hayanki has stated that before recording the statement of Smt. Bilas by him, Doctor checked her and told that she is in position to give the statement.He himself confirmed that she is conscious and he also told Smt. Bilas to given statement without any pressure and any fear.Smt. Bilas was mentally fit to give the statement till her statement was completed.In her dying decleration recorded by Sri Arvind Kumar Hayanki, she has stated that her husband ask her to bring money from her parents when she said that she don't have father and her mother works as domestic help, how can she bring the money.On her denial her husband slapped and poured the kerosine on her and by matchstick lit the fire.Dying decleration is very important peace of evidence if it is untutored and independent then it can be the sole base of conviction.The accused has failed utterly to explain that how Smt. Bilas caught the fire if he has not set Smt. Bilas on fire.He has given the wrong defence that he tried to put off fire of Smt. Bilas and took her to the hospital and he was not caught hold on the spot by the complainant are proved to be false by the documentary evidence as discussed above.Smt. Bilas in her dying decleration statement before the Dr. N. P. Sharma at the time of preparing the injury report and before the City Magistrate, Arvind Kumar Hayanki has stated that her husband Ashwani Kumar has poured the kerosine on her and lit the fire.At the time of both statement she was fully conscious.Doctor has given the certificate of her mental fitness at the time of recording the dying decleration by PW-4 Mr. Arvind Kumar Hayanki.Occurance took place on 02.08.1997 at about 11:00pm and the FIR is lodged promptly without any delay just after 3 hours 15 minutes of the occurance on 03.08.1997 at 02:15 pm.On the basis of above discussion, we come to this conclusion that prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 IPC against accused Ashwani Kumar beyond doubt and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2002 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 6 Meerut in S.T. No.1476 of 1997 State vs. Ashwani Kumar under section 302 IPC, police station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut.We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment.It is passed according to the fact and law.We confirm the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut in S.T. No. 1476 of 1997 State Vs.Ashwani Kumar under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Nauchandi, District Meerut.This appeal is liable to the dismissed.The appeal is dismissed.The learned Amicus Curiae Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, who has very efficiently assisted this Court, will get Rs. 11,000/- as fee.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,758,858 |
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 22.1.1992, the deceased Asha Bai, wife of the appellant was taken to the hospital with the report that she had consumed some poisonous substance.Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the deceased died after 6 years of her marriage but, a doubt is also created that she died after 7 years of her marriage.When doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and therefore, on doubt, it can be said that no presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act is applicable in the present case.Various witnesses have tried to settle the case that the appellant was the person, who was brought by some relatives of the deceased in the house of the deceased to reside as Ghar Jawai and he was looking after the property of father of the deceased and maintaining the deceased and her brother Deshraj (P.W.4).Nobody has alleged that the deceased was-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 being subjected to cruelty on the basis of any dowry demand.It is also stated by some witnesses that initially the elder brother of the appellant was working with father of the deceased in the fields and thereafter, the appellant was working in the fields and after death of father of the deceased, marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant.Hence, it would be apparent that the property was of the deceased and her brother and the appellant was working on the property (land) being husband of the deceased and there was no demand from the side of the appellant.Various witnesses have shown two reasons of cruelty done by the appellant upon the deceased, prior to her death.He has stated that there was no rumour in the village about such relations.If conduct of the deceased is considered then, before consuming poison, she did not state about her problem to anyone, prior to her death.Nobody knew about her problem.st (Delivered on the 21 day of May, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T.No.17/1993, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/-, default sentence was also imposed in lieu of payment of fine.However, she could not be saved.A.K.Naik of Rajendra Hospital, Tikamgarh has sent a merg-:- 2 -:-Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.A team of doctors including Dr.Amitabh Jain (P.W.5) performed the post-mortem on her body and gave a report, Ex.It was found that she had died due to consumption of Sulphas.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Tikamgarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he was residing in the house of the deceased as " Ghar Jawai" and he was dependent upon the property of the deceased.He could not do anything and could not abet the deceased to commit suicide.After her death, he was falsely implicated, so that he may not claim the property of the deceased.In defence, Pooran Lodhi (D.W.1) and Ramjan Khan (D.W.2) were examined.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In the present case, according to the report given by Dr.Amitabh Jain (P.W.5), it is apparent that the deceased died due to consumption of poisonous substance.There is no allegation against the appellant that he forced the deceased to consume poison and there is no allegation that the death of the-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 deceased was homicidal.According to the witness Prabhudayal (P.W.3), Ganeshi Bai (P.W.1) and Deshraj (P.W.4), marriage of the deceased took place 6-7 years prior to her death, whereas Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak (P.W.2) has stated that marriage of the deceased took place 7-8 years back before her death.One was that, he was beating his wife after consumption of liquor and secondly that he had illicit relations with one Bismillah Bai (P.W.7) and the deceased was annoyed due to such relations and therefore, she consumed poison.However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution should be examined minutely on both the counts.Ganeshi Bai (P.W.1), Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak (P.W.2), Prabhudayal (P.W.3), Deshraj (P.W.4), Premchand Jain (P.W.5) were examined to show the relations of the appellant with the deceased prior to her death.However, Ganeshi Bai (P.W.1), Prabhudayal (P.W.3), Premchand Jain (P.W.6) have turned hostile.They did not state about any quarrel between the appellant and his wife in the past.Jhandu Singh @-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 Harsewak (P.W.2) and Deshraj (P.W.3) have stated that before death of the deceased, on several occasions quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant assaulted the deceased.Both the witnesses have stated that main cause of quarrel was that the appellant was visiting the house of Bismillah Bai and deceased had an objection to such a conduct.Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak has stated that after consuming liquor, the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased.However, Deshraj brother of the deceased did not state that the appellant assaulted the deceased after consumption of liquor.Deshraj was residing with his sister and the appellant in the same house and therefore, his observation should be in a better position than the statement given by Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak because the statement of Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak depends upon the information given by others and therefore, his statement falls within the category of hearsay evidence, which is not admissible.Also, it is apparent that Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak had some enmity with the appellant.In this connection, the defence witness Pooran Lodhi (D.W.1) has stated about the reason of quarrel between the appellant and Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak (P.W.2).Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak has accepted in his cross-examination that he gave a complaint to DSP that Investigation Officer and the appellant have settled the matter-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 in a sum of Rs.10,000/-.However, he does not appear to be a reputed member of the community because according to him, a Panchayat took place on the subject that the appellant was visiting the house of Bismillah Bai but, he was not called in the Panchayat though he himself went to view the proceedings of Panchayat and he remained at a side place.If he was a prominent and respected member of the community of the deceased then either he would have been called in the Panchayat or given any responsibility to look after the interest of the deceased.Hence, looking to the conduct of this witness that he lodged a fake complaint to the DSP concerned that the matter was settled between the appellant and Investigation Officer in sum of Rs.10,000/-, indicates that he had an enmity with the appellant and therefore, he gave his statement before the Court to implicate the appellant, without any basis.Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak has tried to show that the deceased told him that the appellant had beaten her soon before the incident when he was going to his fields.He has also stated that the deceased told about the incident in street before one Pinpin but, neither Pinpin was examined before the trial Court, nor his name was shown in the witness list by the police.-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 Such a fact is not told by this witness to the police and therefore, it appears that now he has made the story to show that soon before the death of the deceased, she told about the cruelty done by the appellant towards her, whereas such a fact is nothing but, an after thought, which cannot be accepted.Under these circumstances, the testimony of Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak is not at all acceptable.Most of his evidence depends upon the information received by him and being an enemy, he has given a false evidence against the appellant before the trial Court.If the testimony of Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak is discarded then, certainly, there is no other witness to say that the appellant is in habit to assault the deceased after consuming liquor.Second point of the case is that since the appellant had illicit relations with Bismillah Bai (P.W.7) and the deceased had an objection to those relations.The appellant was in habit to assault the deceased on that count.However, Ganeshi Bai (P.W.1) was the person, who was present with the deceased with an information that she consumed some poisonous substance and she was to be taken to the hospital and also she went alongwith the deceased to the hospital but, according to Ganeshi Bai, the deceased did not say anything about the cause as to why she consumed the poison.Similarly, Prabhudayal (P.W.3) and Premchand Jain have turned hostile.-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 accepted that they did not have any information as to whether the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased due to appellant's relations with Bismillah Bai (P.W.7) or not.Deshraj has stated that since the deceased had an objection about the relation of the appellant with Bismillah Bai but, she was often beaten by the appellant.However, Deshraj is brother of the deceased, who has stated that the appellant had lodged an application for mutation of the property of the deceased in the name of the appellant and a case was pending before the Revenue Court.He has further accepted that after death of the deceased, the crop was reaped by him and the appellant in winter season and thereafter, though the crop was sown by the appellant and him but, it was ripen by the witness Deshraj with help of his cousin brother Prabhydayal.He has also stated that immediately after the incident, he was taken by his maternal uncle, who got the marriage of the deceased performed with the appellant.However, at the time of evidence given by this witness, his land was not looked after by his maternal uncle, whereas his land was looked after by his cousin Prabhudayal.Possibility cannot be ruled out that Deshraj, who was a boy of 13-14 years of age at the time of his deposition, was tutored by other persons that if he does not state against the appellant then, he has to share the property of his father with the-:- 9 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 appellant, who was a stranger in the family and therefore, he could state against the appellant with such allegation.It was stated that the appellant was visiting the house of Bismillah Bai and the deceased had an objection and therefore, the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased.If such a fact is examined on circumstances then, it would be apparent that the deceased had an opportunity to go to his maternal uncle, who settled the marriage of the appellant and the deceased with all allegations but, unfortunately, maternal uncle of the deceased was not at all examined.Even his name is not shown in the witness list.It is not alleged that the deceased went to his maternal uncle to get the problem resolved.It is important to mention that Bismillah Bai (P.W.7) was examined before the trial Court.She did not state that the appellant was visitor to her house.She gave her evidence according to the statement given under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It was for the Investigation Officer to ask the questions about her relations with the appellant on the fact as to whether the deceased raised any objection before Bismillah Bai or any Panchayat took place on that count.However, neither Investigation Officer, nor the prosecutor placed any such question before Bismillah Bai to show that the appellant was visitor to the house of Bismillah Bai.Since the evidence given by Bismillah Bai was not challenged by the prosecutor and she was examined as a prosecution witness, her-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 testimony is binding upon the prosecution and the theory placed by the prosecution, which was a reason of quarrel has discarded in the light of evidence given by Bismillah Bai (P.W.7).Also, Deshraj and Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak has stated that a Panchayat took place due to dispute between the appellant and the deceased because the deceased was visitor to the house of Bismillah Bai.However, no independent witness was examined to prove that sitting of such Panchayat took place.Such Panchayat could be called either by husband of Bismillah Bai or the deceased Asha Bai.Name of the husband of Bismillah Bai was Rafiq Khan.In the witness list submitted alongwith the charge-sheet, name of Rafiq Khan has not been shown a witness.It is not at all clear as to whether Rafiq Khan was residing with Bismillah Bai in those days or not.However, non examination of Rafiq Khan by the police indicates that Rafiq Khan had no knowledge about the alleged relation of Bismillah Bai and the appellant, therefore, if any Panchayat was called on that issue then, it was not called by Rafiq Khan or Bismillah Bai.Certainly, it would have been called by Asha Bai.However, Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak has accepted in para 3 that in that Panchayat, Asha Bai was not present.It was strange that Panchayat was not called by Rafiq Khan or Bismillah Bai, it was not called by Asha Bai even because she was not present in the Panchayat then, there is no answer to-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 this question as to who called the Panchayat.As discussed above, that Jhandu Singh @ Harsewak was telling a falsehood before the Court due to his enmity with the appellant and therefore, after discarding his evidence, there is no evidence on record to say that any Panchayat took place against the appellant on the aforesaid issue.After considering the aforesaid evidence, it appears that Bismillah Bai was examined and no suggestion was given to her by the Investigation Officer or the Prosecutor that the appellant had illicit relations with her and the deceased had an objection to those relations.Marriage of the deceased and appellant was settled by maternal uncle of the deceased but, name of that maternal uncle was neither informed to the Court, nor such maternal uncle was examined before the trial Court.If the deceased was tortured by the appellant or dealt with cruelty for his illicit relations with Bismillah Bai then, the deceased would have atleast made a complaint to her maternal uncle and he must have resolved the problem.Similarly, one Bhagwan Das, who was shown as a respected member of the community was listed as a witness in the list of witnesses submitted alongwith the charge-sheet but, he was given up by the prosecution when he was present before the trial Court.-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 Similarly, Gulab S/o Babla and Jagan were also listed as witnesses but, they were dropped and not examined as witnesses.Ramjan Khan (D.W.2) was a member of community of Bismillah Bai.He has categorically stated that no such Panchayat took place on the issue that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased relating to illicit relations of the appellant with Bismillah Bai.Except Deshraj, there was nobody in the village, who could state that the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased because of her allegation that the appellant had illicit relations with Bismillah Bai.It is pertinent to note that marriage of the deceased took place 7 years, prior to her death and in those 7 years, she could not be blessed with any child and therefore, she must have a reason to commit suicide that she could not be blessed with child.When the relatives of the deceased settled the marriage of the deceased with the appellant for her property be maintained and for maintenance of the deceased and her brother Deshraj.It is accepted by Deshraj that at the time of death of the deceased, property of her father was in the name of-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 the deceased and her brother Deshraj.Appellant had no advantage with the death of the deceased.Under such circumstances, where it is very much clear that Deshraj, who was taken by his maternal uncle after the death of the deceased came to depose in the shelter of Prabhudayal, Prabhudayal and the witness Deshraj came to the Court in the company of each other as accepted by Deshraj in para 2 of his statement.Deshraj and Prabhudayal were examined on 15.3.1994, whereas Prabhudayal had turned hostile and Deshraj has stated against the appellant.As discussed above, it was possible that to oust the appellant from the property of his sister, Deshraj could give such a statement against the appellant otherwise, Prabhudayal who came with the witness Deshraj to the Court and who was cousin brother of Deshraj, did not support the prosecution's story.There was no conflict of interest between Prabhudayal and Deshraj.Deshraj has accepted that on various dates, his maternal uncle was attending the trial Court.However, he denied that he gave his statement as tutored by his maternal uncle.As discussed above, there is no believable evidence to accept that quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased relating to relation of the appellant with Bismillah Bai.She did not inform her maternal uncle about such a fact and therefore, her maternal uncle never interfered in the family life-:- 14 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 of the deceased in the last 7 years of her married life.No FIR was lodged by the deceased against the appellant.The appellant was maintaining the deceased as well as her brother Deshraj for last 7 years.No respectable villager of that village has stated against the appellant that he ever assaulted the deceased due to any reason and therefore, the testimony of Deshraj cannot be accepted to the fact that the appellant was in habit to assault the deceased on her objection to his relation with Bismillah Bai.At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the case diary statement of Deshraj was different and he could not be confronted with his case diary statement at the time of his examination and therefore, on 9.10.1996, the appellant has moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the witness Deshraj but, that application was not accepted.In these circumstances, where the statement of Deshraj given before the trial Court was different from his previous statement given before the police and therefore, testimony of Deshraj cannot be accepted.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is not proved that the appellant had ever assaulted the deceased after consuming liquor.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant ever assaulted the deceased on her objection to the relation of the appellant with Bismillah Bai.It is not at all proved that the appellant had any relation with Bismillah Bai-:- 15 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 (P.W.7).Hence, if any doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant.It is in a fit of anger and emotional.Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel.-:- 16 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die.In the light of aforesaid judgments, if facts of the present case is examined then, certainly, the prosecution could not prove any overt-act of the appellant which may fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC and no offence under Section 306 of IPC may constitute against the appellant.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 306 of IPC.Hence, the conviction-:- 17 -:-Respectable persons of the society were given up.Nobody was present to say that the appellant dealt the deceased with cruelty in last 7 years of her marital life.Alleged maternal uncle was not examined before the trial Court, who could state that the deceased complained about the cruelty done by the appellant and he could say about the steps taken for resolution if any but, unfortunately, neither that maternal uncle was named in the witness list of the prosecution, nor he was examined before the trial Court.Hence, on the basis of evidence of Deshraj only, it cannot be said that the appellant has dealt the deceased with cruelty in her life time, prior to her death.Hence, the appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable and therefore, it is hereby accepted.Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC are hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges appended against him.He would be-:- 18 -:-Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997 entitled to get the fine amount back, if he had deposited the same before the trial Court.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 21/5/2015 Pushpendra
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,765,431 |
M.P.(MD) No.8036 of 2019 19.09.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406,420 and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.O.P.(MD) No.13054 of 201099. 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.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13054 of 20109 investigation and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.19.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Inspector of Police City Crime Branch Tirunelveli City2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13054 of 20109 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,876,840 |
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicant No. 2 Murarilal has expired.I.A. No. 7690/2017 is, accordingly, allowed.The applicants are permitted to delete the name of applicant No. 2 from the array of the cause title.With the permission of the Court, the counsel for the petitioner has carried out the amendment in the Court itself.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal case No. 574/2010 pending in the Court of JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground of compromise.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that earlier the applicant No. 1 had filed a revision against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior, by which the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the applicant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.2,000/-2 MCRC-4669-2017 per month to the respondent No. 2 by way of maintenance.In the said criminal revision, reconciliation proceedings took place and it was agreed that the applicant No. 1 shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum for settlement of the dispute.Accordingly, two months time was granted for submitting the application for compromise.It is submitted that accordingly the petitioner by account payee cheques of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- has paid the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.15,000/- as permitted by this Court by order dated 08.05.2014 and before the payment was made, joint application was also filed under Section 13- B of Hindu Marriage Act. After the payment was made to the respondent, thereafter, she did not appear before the Court below and, accordingly, the application filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has also been dismissed.It is submitted that under these circumstances, it is clear that the sole intention of the respondent was to exploit the applicants and, accordingly, the false allegations were made.It is further submitted that the sole intention of the respondent is to some how keep the applicants busy in the litigation and on the 3 MCRC-4669-2017 contrary, after taking an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, she has started living with another person.Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the criminal case No. 574/2010 pending before the Court of JMFC, Dabra District Gwalior be quashed.Counsel for the respondent No. 2 did not dispute the factum of receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of full and final claim.However, he was not in a position to say that why the respondent No. 2 did not fulfill the compromise entered into by her with the applicant No. 1 and why she did not withdraw the cases.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant No. 2 has already expired.Respondent No. 2 had lodged a report against the applicants that she has married the applicant No. 1 on 23.01.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals.Immediately after the incident, the applicants started demanding a Maruti Car and when she expressed inability of her father to fulfill their demand, then they all started harassing her and they were compelling her to work like servant and were not providing adequate food.Attempts were made to convince the applicants, but they did not agree.On 15.03.2010 the applicants 4 MCRC-4669-2017 assaulted the respondent No. 2 and she was thrown out of her house and a threat was given that unless and until the Maruti Car is given, they would not allow her to stay her in the matrimonial house.On 17.03.2010 the applicants came to the parental home of the respondent No. 2 and again made a demand of Maruti Car.When the father of respondent No. 2 expressed his inability, then the applicants got annoyed and after pushing the door forcibly, entered in the house.The applicant No. 2 was having a gun and all of them gave beating to the respondent No. 2, as a result of which, she sustained injuries.Abusive language was used and a threat to life was given.However, this Court cannot lose sight of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as already pointed out in the reconciliation proceedings.It was agreed upon between the parties that on payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony, all the cases pending between the parties shall be withdrawn.Accordingly, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was also filed, but after the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the applicant No. 1, it appears that the respondent has stopped appearing before the Court and she did not respect the consent given by her during reconciliation proceedings.Under these circumstances, in exercise of extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in order to do complete justice, this 5 MCRC-4669-2017 Court is of the view that criminal prosecution against the applicants No. 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 574/2010 pending in the Court of JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be quashed.Resultantly, the same are hereby quashed.The application is, accordingly, allowed.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,372,383 |
an offence u/s 420 and 406 of IPC.The facts of the case reveal that a complaint was lodged by one Bharat a resident of Ashok Nagar on 13-11-2009 alleging offence u/s 409 and 420 of IPC and it was stated in the complaint that 34 quintals of soyabean were sold by the respondent No.1 Balu to Bharat and the sale consideration in respect of Soyabean was not paid.He has filed a complaint for prosecuting the present petition for offence u/s 409 and 420 of IPC.Police authorities have examined various witnesses and the report reflects that soyabean was purchased by one Ashok Teli, father of Bharat Teli and before the money was paid Ashok Teli expired and number of witnesses were examined and statement of witnesses does not reflect that the present applicant Bharat Teli has purchased soyabean.In those circumstances the Station House Officer, Station House, -2- Tal forwarded a report with an observation that no case for an offence u/s 409 and 420 of IPC is made out.For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 13.01.2005 passed in Criminal Misc.Consequently, the complaint filed by the Complainant and subsequent order dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No.298 of 2003 T.R. 808/03 whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B, IPC, has been taken against the appellants and summons have been ordered to be issued against them for facing trial for the above-said offences shall also stand quashed.The appeal stands allowed accordingly. "However, liberty is granted to the respondent No.1 to file a civil suit for recovery.The observations made in the present case will not come in way of the respondent No.1, in case civil suit is filed and the trial court shall decide the same, in accordance with law.With the aforesaid, the MCRC accordingly stands allowed.No order as to costs.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE RP
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,387,480 |
And In the matter of : Bhudhar Chandra Purkait & anr.They have been falsely implicated.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
115,390,627 |
He further submits that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not supported the version of the F.I.R. and allegation against the accused applicant have been made regarding the assault only.He further submits that this statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been changed by the prosecutrix.In the reinstatement of the prosecutrix on 07.03.2018 which is after more than one month of the lodging of the F.I.R. and this time she has not alleged complicity of Tinku @ Yogesh, co-accused and thus has made substantial improvement.In this statement, the general allegations of causing assault has been levelled against the applicant and no allegation of 354-Ka I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act has been made.In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which they are in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.Let the applicants, Manish @ Sonu, Sujeet and Kallu @ Rakesh Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 18 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-Ka IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Asoha, District - Unnao be released on bail on their 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Shubhankar
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,615,706 |
23.07.13 Item No. 68 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 68And In the matter of: Hafiz Md. Kamrujjaman & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Md. Bani Israil For the Petitioners Ms. Kum Kum Mitra For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 218 of 2013 dated 28.05.2013 under Sections 143/448/379/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,961,734 |
Brief facts of the case which are relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 20.02.2016 complainant Dilip Singh lodged a report at P.S. Barod, District-Agar averring that at the night when he woke up for attending nature's call, at that time he saw the applicants and other co-accused standing in front of his house armed with sharp edged weapons like sword and sticks.On seeing them he shouted and asked the purpose of gathering, upon which neighbour Prahlad Singh and Raghu Singh also came there.Heard finally at motion stage.This revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w S.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by ASJ, Agar, in Sessions Trial No.117/2016, whereby learned Judge framed the charge against accused/applicants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 in alternative 307, 307/149 (2 counts) 323, in alternative 323/149 (3 counts) of IPC.Thereafter, applicants Sajjan Singh, Nepal Singh, Vikramsingh, and co-accused Pursingh, Lalsingh, Dilip Singh & Badri Singh assaulted him and Prahlad Singh by sword and stick due to which they sustained injuries.When Karpal Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Shiv Singh came to rescue them, then applicants and other co-accused assaulted them also.Prahlad Singh died due to injuries sustained by him in the incident.On that report police registered Crime No.51/2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 of IPC against the applicants and investigated the matter and after investigation filed charge sheet before the Court.On that charge-sheet S.T. No.117/2016 was registered.During trial of that case learned ASJ, by order dated 23.06.2016 framed charges against present applicants and other co-accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 in alternative 307, 307/149 (2 counts) 323, in alternative 323/149 (3 counts) of IPC and also u/S.25(1-B) of Arms Act against accused Dilip Singh, Lalsingh & Vikramsingh.Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed this criminal revision.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the case diary statement of complainant Dilip Singh recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that when he shouted Prahlad, Raghu Singh, Kirpal Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Shiv singh came on the spot on which applicants ran away from there then they chased the applicants and other co-accused and when they reached in front of applicant's house, co-accused assaulted them.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that applicants had also come along with other co- accused armed with sharp edged weapons in front of the house of complainant Dilip Singh and when deceased Prahlad and other came on the spot they assaulted Dilip Singh, Prahalad and others.So it is clear that applicants and other co-accused assaulted Prahlad and others in furtherance of their common object.So the Trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing charges against the applicant's for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 in alternative 307, 307/149 (2 counts) 323, in alternative 323/149 (3 counts) of IPC.
|
['Section 302 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', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,096,230 |
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH,J.This petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu A. Manikandan seeking issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for a direction to the respondents to produce his friend A. Manikandan, S/o.Annamalai before this Court and set him at liberty.The reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit are as follows:The petitioner is a cable operator.The detenu is a family friend of the petitioner.On 2.4.2008, a complaint was lodged before the 1st respondent by the defacto complainant stating that at 7.30p.m.on that day, six named accused had threatened him at knife point and demanded to vacate the land situated in Gobichettypalayam, where he was a tenant on account of a civil dispute between him and the landlord.Based on the said complaint, the 1st respondent had registered a case in Crime No. 221/2008 under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 448, 384, 385 and 506(ii) I.P.C. against the detenu and 7 others.The detenu filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P. No. 7904/2008 before this Court and he was also granted anticipatory bail on condition that he shall surrender before the Court and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam.Accordingly, on 23.4.2008, the detenu had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam and produced two sureties.The learned Judicial Magistrate, instead of releasing the detenu, had sent the surety documents for verification and ordered remand of the detenu to judicial custody until the verification was over.As this order, contrary to the order of passed by this Hon'ble Court, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.3. Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishnan appearing for Mr. P. Pugalenthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.The detenu, A. Manikandan, was wrongly foisted with the case in Crime No. 221/2008 for offences under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 448, 384, 385 and 506(ii) I.P.C. on the allegation that the said detenu and others had threatened the defacto complainant at knife point on 2.4.2008 in a civil dispute between the landlord and the tenant (defacto complainant).The detenu A. Manikandan had filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.This Court also granted him anticipatorybail on 10.4.2008 on condition that he shall surrender before the Court and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam.However, surrender application had been filed by the detenu before the Court concerned and an order has also been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam on the said petition.He submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate could have either accepted the surrender or rejected the same as unnecessary depending on whether the sureties deserved acceptance or rejection or she could have ordered for enquiry regarding the genuineness of the sureties.She would mention in her letter dated 14.7.2008 in D.No.838/2008 that on a perusal of the F.I.R. and the surrender petition filed by the accused/detenu, the detenu was found to be a person belonging to Pudukottai District and the sureties affidavits followed by their oral examination disclosed that they belong to Aalankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.While granting anticipatory bail, this Court had only directed the detenu to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam while furnishing sureties.The detenu was not asked to file a surrender petition.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,623,813 |
(Order of the Court was made by R. Subbiah, J) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name V.K. Gurusamy, has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent against the detenu, branding the detenu as Goonda.In the impugned order of detention, the detention authority has relied on four adverse cases and the ground case namely Crime No. 716 of 2018 on the file of Teppakulam Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-A) of The Arms Act and Section 506 (ii) of IPC.On that date, during a routine police check up, the police personnel intercepted a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. TN 64 K 3494 and on an enquiry, it came to light that the detenue and two others, who are occupants of the car, have involved themselves in several criminal cases.A search made in the car revealed that the detenu and others were armed with pistols illegally purchased from Bihar.It is also seen that in the first three adverse cases, the bail petitions filed by the detenu werehttp://www.judis.nic.in allowed and he was granted bail subject to certain conditions.The third bail application filed by the detenu in Crl.MP No. 5136 of 2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is pending, as could be seen from the impugned order of detention.It is at this juncture, the second respondent has passed the impugned order of detention by reasoning that there are adequate possibilities for the detenu to come out on bail and if he is let on bail, he will indulge in activities which would be detrimental to public law and order.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds assailing the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, primary among them is the delay in passing the impugned order of detention.However, the impugned order of detention came to be passed on 29.10.2018 after 87 days.This delay, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, would vitiate the order of detention and there is no necessity at all for the detention authority to pass the impugned order of detention after 87 days of arrest of the detenu.Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained under law and he prayed for setting aside the order of detention.Opposing the prayer sought for in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the detenu is a habitualhttp://www.judis.nic.in offender and he involved himself in three adverse cases which are registered for the offences under Section 302 of IPC.The fourth adverse case 4 registered against the detenu pertains to usage of explosives illegally manufactured and used in the commission of the offence.The detention authority has also arrived at a subjective satisfaction to clamp the detenu with the detention order in the larger interest of the general public and therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would pray for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned Senior counsel for Mr.However, we are setting aside the order of detention passed by the detaining authority on technicalities, as mentioned supra, Therefore, we wish to observe that this order, quashing of the impugned order of detentionhttp://www.judis.nic.in passed by the second respondent against the detenu, will not in any manner operate as a bar for the prosecution to oppose the bail applications, if 7 any, filed by the detenu or pending, by citing the past antecedents of the detenu in involving himself in five cases as also the nature and magnitude or overt act attributable against the detenu in those cases.With the above observation, we set aside the impugned order of detention dated 29.10.2018 passed by the second respondent – Commissioner of Police, Madurai and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu V.K. Gurusamy, Son of Krishna Thevar, aged 60 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(R.P.S.J.,) (B.P.J.,) 25-01-2019 rsh Index : Yes / No ToThe Principal Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Madurai City, MaduraiThe Superintendent of Police Palayamkottai Central Prison Tirunelveli Districthttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 R. SUBBIAH, J and B. PUGALENDHI, J rsh HCP (MD) No. 1597 of 2018 25-01-2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,963,122 |
Irfan Shaikh, learnedamicus curiae.KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 2/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::On 29.9.2001, PW-1 Vivek Vasant Gawade lodged acomplaint with Panvel Railway police that his sister Rasika had gotmarried to accused in 1992 and was residing with him at Kolgaon-Zirangewadi.For 3 years, Rasika was treated well but as she wasunable to conceive, accused used to beat her and abuse her in adrunken condition and he was informed by Rasika from time to time.It seems Rasika had complained to their elder brother Vijay andmaternal Uncle Tukaram Mahadeo Naik on many occasions.Whenaccused was asked not to ill-treat Rasika, there was no improvementin the behaviour of accused and on the contrary resulted in moreabuses and more beating.During Ganpati festival in 2001, PW-1 had gone to theirvillage Saramal, Nangartas to which family of Rasika belonged to.On30.8.2001, PW-1 went to meet his aunt Suhasini at Morgaon.On1.9.2001, when PW-1 was at Morgan, a phone call was received fromRasika who complained that accused had beaten her and driven herout of the house and she did not want to live with her husband-accused.Therefore, PW-1 Vivek and PW-2 Mahadeo, the son ofmaternal Uncle of PW-1 went and brought Rasika from Kolgaon.Atthat time, Rasika told them about the incident of beating.On11.9.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. PW-1 and Rasika were to go to Bhandupto the house of their elder brother Vijay.It is stated that before goingto railway station, Rasika, PW-1 and PW-2 went to Sawantwadi policestation where Rasika complained about ill-treatment to her.It is prosecution's case that thereafter Rasika and PW-1boarded Konkan Kanya Express train on 11.9.2001 for Mumbai.Atabout 3 to 3.30 a.m. on 12.9.2001 when the train was somewherenear about Nagothane station, Rasika went to the latrine.As Rasikadid not return for a long time, PW-1 knocked the door of the latrineand as nobody opened the door, at Panvel railway station at about4.00 a.m., PW-1 broke the glass of the window of the latrine andfound Rasika had hanged herself with her saree on her person.PW-1immediately informed the Railway Station Master and the Enginedriver but they informed him that the train could not be stopped.AtChhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminal, Mumbai Police were present,they drew spot panchanama and inquest panchanama of the deadbody of Rasika.Anamika Malhotra APP for appellant-State.Irfan Shaikh appointed as Amicus Curiae.CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 31.1.2020ORAL JUDGMENT:-This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated10.7.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, acquittingrespondent of offences punishable under Sections 498-A ( Husband orrelative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 306(Abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.Before I proceed with the case, I must express myappreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.Rasika wasKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 3/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::Thereafter body was sent to the post mortem andrailway police recorded the statements.Complaint was lodged on29.9.2001 at railway police station against accused stating thatKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 4/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docaccused was responsible for suicide and ill-treatment of Rasika.Statement of PW-2 was recorded and also some more witnesses.The charge-sheet lists 15 witnesses and only 4 have beenexamined.Strangely, prosecution did not examine its ownInvestigating officer who had filed the charge-sheet.The charge-sheet was sent by the Court of JudicialMagistrate, First Class at Sawantwadi.The charges were framed andaccused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The case of the defence is that accused had not subjectedRasika to cruelty, Rasika was depressed and mentally affected andaccused was not responsible for suicide.Before I proceed further I need to note that it is verydifficult to believe the case of PW-1 that he claims to have broken thewindow of the train in 2 minutes when the train would normally stopKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 5/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docat Panvel.Panvel was not their final destination.Train stopped for avery short time at Panvel.PW-1 claims to have broken the glass of thetoilet and found Rasika had committed suicide by hanging herself andrushed to the office of Station Master to inform him and also ran toinform the Engine driver and came back in the train.The prosecution led evidence of 4 witnesses viz., VivekVasant Gawade, being the youngest brother of Rasika as (PW-1);Mahadeo Ganesh Naik, a cousin of deceased Rasika who saw them offat Sawantwadi as (PW-2); Pandurang Baburao Dhamale, PSI whorecorded the complaint as (PW-3); and Bhivasen Rama Gawas,Investigating officer as (PW-4).As against this, defence recorded evidence of one SitaramSakharam Kawale, a neighbour of accused as (DW-1); RaghunathGopal Palkar, Police Sub Inspector who was Investigating officer,(because railway police at Panvel after recording FIR had transferredthe file to Sawantwadi police station) as (PW-2); and Dr.PandurangNamdeo Kadam, General Practitioner having his clinic at Jeevan Jyothospital at Sawantwadi as (PW-3).KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 6/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::The trial Court has listed various loopholes, omissions andcontradictions and for the sake of brevity, I do not wish to reproducethe same.First of all, the delay of 17 days in lodging the complainthas not been explained.Secondly, Vijay, brother of Rasika and PW-1and their uncle Tukaram Mahadeo Naik to whom, PW-1 says, Rasika isalleged to have informed about her torture, have not been examined.PW-1 was living in Mumbai with his brother and Rasika was livingwith her husband, accused.PW-1 does not say anywhere that he evensaw Rasika being treated with cruelty.PW-1 admits that Rasika wasunhappy because she could not conceive.When a suggestion was putto him that Rasika had attempted suicide for 2 to 3 times in a fit ofmadness, PW-1 does not deny but says he does not know whetherRasika attempted.PW-1 says he does not know that Rasika went tothe well saying that she had headache, she did not want to live andshe wanted to commit suicide and the neighbours had brought herback from the well.As against this, DW-1 says that once Rasika has gone to awell and was sitting and when he asked what she was doing, she saidthat she wanted to commit suicide.DW-1 brought her back.DW-1 says that Rasika used to behave like lunatic.DW-1 isKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 7/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docneighbour of accused and unrelated to accused.DW-1 says thatRasika was never treated badly by accused and also adds that accuseddid not take liquor.DW-1 says Rasika never even informed him thataccused used to beat her.PW-1 also admits that Rasika had been taken to JeevanJyot hospital at Sawantwadi by Madhukar, the brother of accused buthe denies that Rasika was admitted in the hospital for treatment oflunacy.As against this, DW-3, Dr.Pandurang Namdeo Kadam saysthat Rasika was brought to him in Jeevan Jyot hospital.He examinedher and she had depressive psychosis which relates to symptoms ofdepression, anxiety and irrelevant behaviour.PW-1 says he never took Rasika to any hospital for anymedical treatment.PW-1 also says that in his statement recorded bythe police he does not mention that his cousin PW-2 had come tosawantwadi railway station to see them of.PW-2 says that his statement was recorded by police, 3weeks later.He also says that Rasika was treated for some time formental stress and physical strain.PW-2 says that he might have gone2 to 3 times to her house at Kolgaon (in 9 years of her marriage).PW-2 also says that Rasika was sad as she had no child.PW-2 doesnot anywhere states that he ever saw accused physically assaulted orKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 ::: 8/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:26 :::221.Apeal1205.03.doctreated Rasika with cruelty.15. PW-1 and PW-2 say they went to the Sawantwadi policestation before PW-1 and Rasika left for Mumbai on 11.9.2001 andRasika told the police about cruelty but no complaint is produced onrecord.The cruelty must be of such a degree ascontemplated by the Section, i.e., it must be wilful conduct of such anature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to causegrave injury or danger to life, limb and health of the woman.As far as cruelty under Section 498A is concerned,prosecution relies mainly on evidence of P.W.-1 Vivek Vasant Gawadeand P.W.-2 Mahadeo Ganesh Naik.P.W.1 Vivkek, is the brother ofRasika and P.W.-2 Mahadeo is the maternal uncle's son.Both areclose relatives.Accused has come with defence that Rasika was havingmental problems.Accused says that Rasika even told him that she wasmentally ill and marriage should not have been performed, but it wasKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 9/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::Accused says at the suggestion of the fatherof Rasika, he even took her to KEM Hospital, Bombay and for four tofive months they stayed at Bombay and medicines were given toRasika.Accused says that as it was not possible to live in Bombaypermanently, they returned to the matrimonial home and requestedRasika's maternal uncle to send the medicines.Sometimes he sent themedicines and sometimes he did not.Accused also led evidence ofDW.-3 Dr. Pandurang Namdeo Kadam to prove that Rasika wassuffering from depression and anxiety etc., just a few days before thealleged incident.Possibly, that may be the reason why Rasika wastaken to the house of her maternal uncle first and then was beingtaken to Mumbai.Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the cruelty underSection 498A of IPC.Section 306 reads as under :Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable toKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 10/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 11/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::In Manish Kumar Sharma Vs.State of Rajasthan 1, theprosecution story was that the accused Manish Kumar had advancedsome money to the victim Kusum Devi and that there were frequentquarrels between the said accused and the said Kusum Devi.State of Madhya Pradesh 2, thefacts of the prosecution case were that the accused Vedprakash andothers had advanced a loan to the deceased Ramesh Kumar and thaton the day prior to the incident, the accused had filthily abused1 1995 Criminal Law Journal 30662 1995 Criminal Law Journal 893KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 12/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docRamesh Kumar and had demanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/ fromhim, threatening that otherwise he would be killed.Again, in the nightof the same day, demand was made from Ramesh Kumar for therepayment of the loan advanced.Ramesh Kumar was abused andthreatened repeatedly.On the next day, Ramesh Kumar wanted tolodge a report in Police Station against the accused person; but insteadcommitted suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.In thesuicide note left by him, he blamed the accused persons, who werecharged of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC andwere prosecuted.In that case, the allegationagainst the accused/appellant before the Supreme Court was that hehad abetted the commission of suicide of his sister's husband oneChander Bhushan.The facts show that there were matrimonial3 2002 Criminal Law Journal 2796KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 13/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docdisputes between Neelam, sister of the appellant/accused and herhusband and that, in connection with these disputes, the appellant hadallegedly threatened and abused the said Chander Bhushan.ChanderBhushan committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by theprosecution to the quarrel that had taken place between the appellantand the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior.It was alleged that theappellant had used abusive language against said Chander Bhushanand had told him "to go and die".The appellant, who had beenchargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code, filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings against him, but hisPetition was dismissed by the High Court.The petitioner had,therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court.While allowing the appeal,the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows :A Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Cyriac,S/o Devassia and another Vs.SubInspector of Police, KaduthuruthyKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 14/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::The facts of thatcase were that the deceased Joseph owed Rs. 200/- to one of theaccused and was not able to pay back the money.The accused hadcalled Joseph to the bakery of accused, wrongfully restrained him andabused him in public.One of the accused also beat Joseph.Joseph feltinsulted.On reaching home, he divulged his embarrassment to hiswife and on the same night, committed suicide by consuming poison.According to the prosecution, it was because of the words uttered bythe accused persons and the manner in which the deceased was dealtwith by them in public, that the deceased had committed suicide.Theaccused were being prosecuted for an offence punishable underSection 306 of the Indian Penal Code and had approached the KeralaHigh Court for quashing the proceedings initiated against them.The Learned Single Judge ultimately summarized the legalposition as follows :From the discussion already made by me, I hold as follows : The act or conduct of the accused, however, insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide.Even if the words uttered by the accused or his conduct in public are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive him to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of4 2005 Criminal Law Journal 4322KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 15/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::Theprosecution against him had been initiated on the basis of the FIRlodged by one Harshidaben, widow of Deepakbhai Joshi.Thesubstance of allegation against the accused was that her husbandDeepakbhai was serving as a driver in Ahmedabad Bharat SancharNigam Ltd., in the Microwave Project Department.He had undergonebypass surgery and was advised by the doctor to avoid lifting heavyweights.The accused - Madan Mohan Singh, who was the superior ofDeepakbhai, used to use Deepakbhai to run his private errands andhad been harassing him.Though Madan Mohan Singh wastransferred, he kept on continuously using the services of Deepakbhai.Madan Mohan Singh was then again transferred in the Microwave5 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docProject department.On the very first day, he told Deepakbhai to keepthe keys of the vehicle on the table.Deepakbhai however, did notlisten to him on account of which Madan Mohan Singh was angry andhad threatened him of suspension.He had also threatened Deepakbhaithat if he did not listen to him, he would create difficulties for him.Madan Mohan Singh had told Deepakbhai, as to how he was still alive,inspite of the insults.On 21.2.2008, Deepakbhai left his house asusual, but did not return in the evening.A missing report was lodgedwith the police.Ultimately, Deepakbhai's dead body was found lyingin a vehicle.His wife Harshidaben then lodged a report with thepolice, alleging that Deepakbhai had been harassed by Madan MohanSingh and that he had been insulted in front of the staff several timesand because of that Deepakbhai was depressed and had committedsuicide.A suicide note was allegedly left by the said Deepakbhai,blaming Madan Mohan Singh for his acts and stating that he wascommitting suicide due to his functioning style.Madan Mohan Singhapproached the High Court at Gujarat and later Supreme Court ofIndia for getting the prosecution against him quashed.Supreme Courtof India while quashing the proceedings in question observed inparagraph 12 as under :"In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on theKJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 ::: 17/19::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::221.Apeal1205.03.docreappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.Appeal dismissed.(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)KJ ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:42:27 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,631,273 |
Arun s/o Krishnarao Somwanshi Age 34 yearsSoniram s/o Vitthal Patil Age 57 yearsVishwanath Vyankat Somwanshi Age 51 yeas No.2, 4 to 8 R/o Balad, Taluka Pachora, No.3 R/o Balad Khurd, Taluka Bhadgaon, Dist.On 4.10.1994 at 3.10 p.m., P.W.1 Ravindra Zanwar lodged F.I.R.Exh.89 at Pachora Police Station.On the earlier day 3.10.1994, he hadattended office of Block Development Officer for a meeting ofSarpanch and Gramsevak.After completing his private work, he alongwith Motilal was returning by Bajaj M-80 bike bearing registrationNo.MH-19-B-6815 to Balad.At about 9.30 to 9.45 p.m., he came nearthe railway gate, which was closed.That time, accused no.3 PradeepNarsing and accused no.5 Arun also halted near the closed railwaygate and on opening the gate, they overtook them.When they cameabout 1 Km.ahead of village Lohatar, he slowed down the bike, as theroad was not good.That time, in the light of bike he saw accusedno.1 Chandrakant and accused no.2 Suresh, accused no.3 Pradeep,accused no.5 Arun, accused no.6 Soniram, accused no.7 Vishwanathand accused no.4 Rajendra were also standing by the side of the road.Chandrakant came there and gave him a slap on right cheek.Heraised shouts and his bike fell down.Appeal 194/2004 4Along with him, Motilal was also assaulted.They were instigatingeach other that they should be killed.When P.W.1 Ravindra wastrying to escape from them, somebody gave a stick blow on hisshoulder.He escaped and entered the crop.Chandrakant was DeputySarpanch and he had brought no confidence motion against him, butit was unsuccessful and P.W.1 Ravindra was appointed as anAdministrator.Hence, they were assaulted.On the basis of suchF.I.R., crime was registered at C.R.No.134/1994 and the same wasinvestigated into.P.W.1 Ravindra has deposed that he was Sarpanch and on3.10.1994, after attending the meeting at B.D.O. Office, he wasreturning to Balad at late night.P.W.3 Motilal was along with him andthey were coming on his own bike Bajaj M-80 bearing No.They left Pachora at 9.30 p.m. and stopped near the railwaygate.That time, accused no.3 Pradeep and accused no.5 Arun alsocame there on Rajdoot bike and stopped near them.After some time,the gate opened and they overtook them.He stated that when theycame at some distance from Lohatar, all the accused came in front oftheir bike.Accused no.1 Chandrakant gave him a slap on right cheek.He fell down from the bike.Then Suresh (A-2) gave blow of somesharp weapon on his skull and thereafter all the accused assaultedhim and Motilal by means of fist and kick blows and sticks.That time,Chandrakant (A-1) and Suresh (A-2)were instigating the other accusedto kill them.He further stated that one of the accused had given ablow of some object on his right shoulder with full force, but he andMotilal fled away and saved their lives.He had sustained injury oncheek, right ear and nose.It was on account of political enmity andhis appointment as Administrator in spite of resistance ofChandrakant (A-1), who was Deputy Sarpanch.On the same night, hehad gone to the village Lohatar and thereafter by jeep to Pachora atthe police station.Then,Sarpanch P.W.1 Ravindra met him at Pachora and they were comingby M-80 bike at 9.00 p.m. He narrated the waiting of P.W.3 Prakashand P.W.5 Arun near the railway gate and subsequent attack byaccused nos.1 to 7 on them.He stated that near the railway gate,accused Prakash and Arun were looking at them with inimical eyesand he requested Ravindra to allow him to get down, but Ravindra didnot allow him.He thereafter deposed about obstruction to them bythe accused.It was bone deep.Mr C.S. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for appellantMr R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr V.R. Dhorde, Advocate forrespondents no.1 to 7- WITH -CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.365 OF 2003Ravindra s/o Ramkisan Zanwar,Age 48 years, Occu.Agricultural,R/o Balad, Taluka Pachora,District Jalgaon ..Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.I., Police Station, Pachora, District Jalgaon::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 ::: Cri.Appeal 194/2004 2::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::Chandrakant s/o Dinkar Somwanshi, Age 28 yearsJalgaon ..RespondentsMr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitionerMr C.S. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for respondent no.1Mr R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr V.R.Dhorde, Advocate forrespondents no.2 to 8 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ DATE : 6th January 2018ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Dhavale, J.)In Regular Criminal Case No.172/1994, all the respondents asaccused persons were prosecuted before Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Pachora for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324,326, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code for causinggrievous injury to Motilal and Ravindra for Offences punishable underSections 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::Appeal 194/2004 3By judgment dated 16.7.2003, all the accused were acquitted ofthe offences charged.The facts relevant for deciding these matters may be stated asfollows.Then, accused no.2 Suresh cameahead and inflicted a blow of sharp weapon on his skull and theremaining accused assaulted him with fist and kick blows and sticks.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::The spot panchnama was drawn, medical treatmentwas given to the injured and their medical certificates were collected.Statements of material witnesses were recorded and after completionof investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Pachora.The learned Magistrate framed charge against all the accusedfor offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 read with Sec.149,326, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded notguilty.The prosecution examined six witnesses.The learned JudicialMagistrate, First Class disbelieved the prosecution case and acquittedthe accused.Hence, this appeal and Criminal Revision Application.Learned A.P.P. Mr C.S. Kulkarni argued that accused no.1 haspolitical enmity with P.W.1 Ravindra Zanwar as they belong todifferent parties.The evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra is cogent andconsistent with the F.I.R. It is supported by medical evidence andevidence of P.W.2 Motilal.The learned trial Judge should havebelieved the evidence and should have convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::Appeal 194/2004 5Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr Dhorde supported thejudgment of the trial Court.As per evidence ofDr.Ramkrishna Teli, P.W.1 Ravindra was having only two injuries andP.W.2 Motilal was also having only two injuries.Therefore, theinvolvement of the seven accused indicates that there was falseimplication.There is no consistency in the evidence.Learned trialJudge has rightly appreciated the evidence and the view taken by himis reasonable and probable view.Hence, the same should not beinterfered with.The points for our consideration with our findings are as follows:::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::Then, he was referred to Medical Hospital, Pachoraand thereafter to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.His F.I.R. was recorded.P.W.2 Motilal has supported him on material aspects.He::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 ::: Cri.Appeal 194/2004 7had been to Pachora for his personal work of payments.He stated that accused no.1 Chandrakant first gave slapto Ravindra on right cheek and thereafter accused Suresh assaultedhim with sharp weapon on head and thereafter Suresh had given kicksto him.Then, other accused had stretched his legs and took him tosome distance and by pressing his neck, pelted stones on his back.Accused no.1 Chandrakant accosted him why he accompanied P.W.1Ravindra.He then begged for mercy.Then, he was left and Ravindrawas assaulted by the accused.When they were lying down, theaccused left the spot and thereafter he went to Ravindra, saw hisinjuries.His clothes were stained with blood.Then, accused no.1Chandrakant again came on his bullet and due to fear, he andRavindra concealed themselves in jute crop.Thereafter, they went toLohatar at the house of D.A. Mahajan, who carried them to Pachoraand then to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.He stated that he had sustainedinjury on his back and shoulder.He has deposed about the medicaltreatment received by him.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::He had seen some blood stains on stones on the spot. P.W.4::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 ::: Cri.Appeal 194/2004 8Prakash who had held P.W.1 Ravindra and P.W.2 Motilal has turnedhostile and not supported the prosecution.He denied that bloodstained clothes of P.W.1 Ravindra were seized in his presence.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::10. P.W.5 Dr. Teli was Medical Officer at Pachora.He had examinedP.W.1 Ravindra and found two injuries on his person as follows :1) Contusion with swelling with tenderness on back, right side upper column.There were painful movements and the pain was reiterated to be right shoulder joint.2) Clean incised wound about incised 2 ½ cm x cotter region on right occipital region.There was oozing of blood as well as blood was also oozing from right ear.The patient was referred to Jalgaon for radiology examination.He then examined P.W.2 Motilal andfound following injuries on his person." Scratch with abrasion with swelling with tenderness on left side.There were painful movements.Swelling with tenderness at upper quad and back left side."12. P.W.6 Yadav is Investigating Officer.He has proved spotpanchnama Exh.93, seizure of blood stained clothes of Motilal Exh.120and shirt Article 'D'.Seizure of blood stained clothes of RavindraExh.121 - Articles A.B.C. He had also sent blood samples of the::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::After carefully going through the evidence on record, we findthat there is no reason to disbelieve P.W.1 Ravindra and P.W.2 Motilalwith regard to assault on them at the relevant time, however, we findthat their evidence regarding the assailants is not trustworthy andreliable.In the first place, they have disclosed the names of sevenaccused persons, whereas the total number of injuries on both ofthem are only four.It is difficult to conceive that three accusedpersons, who came there would only wait and stand.If each accusedwould have inflicted single injury, still there would have been moreinjuries.The evidence that all the accused persons assaulted themwith kick blows and sticks cannot be accepted.Besides, the incident took place at 10.00 p.m. outside thevillage.There was no source of light.The contention that all theaccused were seen in the light of M-80 bike is difficult to believe,particularly P.W.1 Ravindra and P.W.2 Motilal could not tell the natureof sharp weapons used for assaulting P.W.1 Ravindra on his skull.The evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra and P.W.2 Motilal iscontradictory on some material points.According to P.W.1 Ravindra,while the incident was going on, he and Motilal escaped from theclutches of the accused and concealed themselves in crop.Whereas,::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 ::: Cri.Appeal 194/2004 10according to P.W.2 Motilal, both of them were on the ground and theaccused left the spot and when after some time accused no.1Chandrakant returned on his bullet, they concealed themselves.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::P.W.1 Ravindra has deposed about assault by all the accused byfist blows, legs and sticks on himself and Motilal.On the contrary, he deposed that his neck was pressed upside downand he was assaulted on back by pelting stones.His evidence thatthe accused accosted him why he accompanied P.W.1 Ravindra andon his request he was let off is not deposed by P.W.1 Ravindra.Hiscross-examination reveals that he denied any attack by sticks.It is pertinent to note that there is no recovery of weapons norany recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused.In the light ofthese facts, the learned trial Judge has disbelieved P.W.1 Ravindra andP.W.2 Motilal.There is serious lacuna regarding the source of light onthe spot and reasonable doubt is created about the involvement of theaccused persons.It is certain that there would have been many moreinjuries to both the injured in case seven accused persons would haveassaulted them simultaneously for some time.Considering the facts,we find that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is reasonableand probable view and the same cannot be interfered with.Hence, weanswer all the points against the prosecution and pass the followingorder:::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::Appeal 194/2004 11- ORDER -The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.Criminal Revision Applicationalso stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2018 22:06:33 :::
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,096,357 |
From the record of the case following factsemerge.The appellant was married to deceased Pramila.During the subsistence of marriage the deceasedgave birth to a boy named Sangam.The appellant usedto ill-treat the deceased.Therefore, her brother IshwarSambhaji Kahire brought her to Village Belora.Acompromise took place and, therefore, the deceased wassent to her matrimonial home.However, thereafter alsothe appellant continued to ill-treat the deceased.Therefore, her brother again brought her back to VillageBelora.As the deceased had no means to sustain herselfand her son, she had filed proceedings under Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forobtaining maintenance from the appellant.The brotherof the deceased took a room on rent for the deceased andher son at Wani belonging to one Dadaji ShankarGanfade.The deceased and her son aged four yearswere residing in the said rented room and the boy was 4taking education.After about one and a half months theappellant started visiting the deceased and pressurizingher to withdraw the proceedings initiated for gettingmaintenance.On November 11, 1994, the appellant went to theroom of the deceased in the evening time from his villageLalguda and asked the deceased to withdraw themaintenance proceedings.However, as the deceased hadno means to maintain herself and her son, she refused towithdraw the proceedings.Again on November 12, 1994at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning the appellant went tothe room of the deceased.At that time the deceased andher son Sangam were sleeping.The appellant camethere under the influence of liquor.On door beingknocked by the appellant, the deceased opened the doorand that is how the appellant entered the room occupiedby the deceased.On entering the room the appellantpressed the neck of the deceased but the deceased gotherself released from the clutches of the appellant.5Thereafter, the appellant took up an iron Polpat, i.e.,Stone Rolling Pad and inflicted a blow on the head of thedeceased.Because of the injury sustained by her, thedeceased started bleeding.The appellant took someamount lying in the room and ran away.The son of thedeceased started weeping loudly.His cries attracted theattention of the landlord Dadaji Shankar Ganfade.Dadaji in turn woke up his wife and other tenants andrushed to the room occupied by the deceased.Onentering the room, he found that the deceased was lyinginjured seriously.On enquiry being made, the deceasedtold him and other tenants that as she had refused towithdraw the maintenance proceedings, her husbandhad inflicted blow on her head with a stick.The landlordof the house and other tenants immediately shifted thedeceased to Wani Hospital.The Medical Officer, who was in-charge of RuralHospital, Wani, sent an intimation to the Police Station,Wani at about 5.00 A.M. that one woman named Pramila 6was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition.The P.S.O., Wani Police Station, sent a requisition to theExecutive Magistrate for recording dying declaration ofthe deceased in the very morning itself.On receipt of therequisition, the Executive Magistrate went to the RuralHospital, Wani and recorded the dying declaration of thedeceased at about 6.30 A.M. The P.S.O., Wani PoliceStation also directed Head Constable Ashok Dudhane togo to Rural Hospital, Wani, and record the dyingdeclaration of the deceased.Accordingly the HeadConstable went to the hospital and recorded the dyingdeclaration of the deceased.After going through thecontents of the dying declaration the Head Constablehimself became the first informant and filed hiscomplaint.However, the condition of the deceasedstarted deteriorating.Therefore, she was referred toChandrapur Hospital from where she was referred toGovernment Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur.Onlearning that her sister was admitted to Nagpur Hospitalwith serious injuries, her brother Ishwar SambhajiKahire went to the said hospital where the deceasedmade oral dying declaration before him that theappellant had beaten her by means of stick as she hadrefused to accede to his pressure tactics to withdraw themaintenance proceedings.The Investigating Officer prepared spot panchnamaand seized iron Polpat used in the commission of crime.It may be mentioned that the deceased had referred toassault on her with stick because she was lying on bedand could not have seen or identified the weapon when 8assaulted.Blood stained chadar from the spot was alsoattached.The Investigating Officer recorded statementsof those persons, who were found to be conversant withthe facts of the case.The Medical Officer,in-charge of the Hospital, conducted Post Mortem.TheInvestigating Officer was searching for the appellant butthe appellant was found absconding.J.M. PANCHAL, J.Leave granted.The appellant has challenged judgment dated September 25, 2006, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2002 by which decision dated February 21, 2002, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1995 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 as well as R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A, is confirmed.The incriminatingarticles seized were sent to Forensic Science Laboratoryfor analysis.On completion of investigation, theappellant was charge-sheeted in the court of learnedJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani for commission ofoffences punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC.As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC isexclusively tried by a court of sessions, the case wascommitted to Sessions Court, Yavatmal for trial.The 9learned Sessions Judge framed charge against theappellant at Exh.-18 for commission of offencespunishable under Section 302 and Section 498A of theIPC.The charge was read over and explained to theappellant.However, the appellant did not plead guilty tothe charge and claimed to be tried.Therefore, theprosecution examined 11 witnesses and produceddocumentary evidence to prove charge against theappellant.After examination of the witnesses was over,the learned Judge explained to the appellant theincriminating circumstances appearing against him inthe evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded hisstatement under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.In the further statement, the case of theappellant was that of total denial.However, he did notexamine any witness in support of his defence.Thereafter, the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard on the question of sentence.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2002 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.The Division Bench has dismissed the appeal by 11 judgment dated September 25, 2006 giving rise to the instant appeal.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail.After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the delay was condoned and notice was issued confining to the nature of offence.The testimony of Dr. Vinod Agrawal, who was Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, Government Medical 12College, Nagpur, shows that he had conducted PostMortem on the dead body of the deceased PramilaPatil.In his substantive evidence the doctor hasmentioned the external as well as internal injuriessustained by the deceased.The Medical Officer inhis deposition has stated that all the injuries foundon the body of the deceased were ante mortem andwere sufficient in the ordinary course of nature tocause death.The doctor had also producedcorroborative evidence in the nature of post-mortemnotes prepared by him wherein external andinternal injuries sustained by the deceased arementioned.It is not the case of the appellant thatthe deceased had died because of self-inflictedinjuries or that the injuries sustained by her wereaccidental or suicidal.As noticed earlier two dying declarations of the deceased were recorded - one by the Executive Magistrate and another by the Head Constable.In both the dying declarations the deceased has given consistent version of the incident in question.In both the dying declarations it was stated by her that because she had refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings initiated by her against the appellant, the appellant had entered her room in the morning of November 12, 1994 and inflicted blow on her head with a stick.This is not a case of misidentification of the appellant as person who had mounted attack on his wife because the wife knew the appellant very well.There was no reason for the deceased wife to falsely implicate her husband in such a serious case and allow the real culprit to go scot-free.The deceased had every opportunity to identify the appellant, who was permitted to enter the room by the deceased when 14the door was knocked by the appellant.Incidentally, it may be mentioned that thetestimony of child witness Sangam recorded beforethe Sessions Court also makes it more than clearthat the appellant was the person who had inflictedinjury on the head of the deceased.Though thischild witness was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record soas to impeach his credibility.The defence could noteven prima facie establish that the child witnesshad given tutored version of the incident before theCourt.No major contradictions and/orimprovements with reference to his earlier policestatement could be brought to light at all.ThisCourt finds no reason to discredit the evidence ofthe child witness.On re-appreciation of theevidence on record, this Court finds that the findingrecorded by the Sessions Court and the High Courtthat the appellant was author of the fatal injury 15 inflicted on the head of the deceased, is well founded and no case is made out by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the same.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
109,644,236 |
(v) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 427 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 1,000/- (Rs. ONE THOUSAND ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR THREE MONTHS.3] The prosecution story, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus :4] On 11th October 2002, there were communal riots in Solapur City.The said date fell during the period when Navratri festival was being celebrated.In Vishnu Nagar area also, residents were celebrating Navratri festival.For the said purpose, a stage was erected near permanent temple of the Goddess.On the said day at around 4 to 4.30 P.M. Various persons, including P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav - the first informant, P.W.11 - Mahadev Jadhav, P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki had 8/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsgathered there and were sitting on the stage where the idol of Goddess was displayed.When these persons were sitting on the stage, 10-12 persons from Muslim community arrived near the platform and they started abusing the Goddess in filthy and dirty language.It is the prosecution case that, shouting slogans, all these persons climbed on the platform.They broke the idol of Goddess and idol of Lion, amplifier, tape-recorder, mike etc. All these persons took out weapons from their persons.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::5] It is the further prosecution case that, while those persons were destroying the idol of Goddess, the deceased Chandrakant Mhetre came there on motorcycle from eastern side.Those 10-12 persons felt that, Police Officer was coming on motorcycle.Hence, they started running towards Nai Jindagi Chowk.Initially, those 10-12 persons ran towards southern side and thereafter started running towards eastern side.Deceased Chandrakant stationed his motorcycle near the stage or platform and started following them.P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki alongwith other persons, started following the deceased Chandrakant Mhetre.While they were so following, four persons from Muslim community came 9/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsthere from opposite direction i.e. from Noorani Chowk.The 10-12 persons to whom they were following and some persons coming from opposite direction came together and started advancing towards the deceased and the aforestated witnesses.One of the said persons, who was coming from opposite side, was accused No.1 - Mahiboob Shaikh.He gave directions to other persons saying "Kato Todo Khalas Karo".They pushed away motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre.They poured kerosene on it, set it on fire by a matchstick and thereafter they ran away.When those persons, after assaulting Chandrakant Mhetre, were advancing towards stage, at that time P.W.6 - Sunil followed them from his house.P.W. 6 - Sunil and other office bearers of the Mandal, lifted Chandrakant Mhetre and brought him near the stage.201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsGurusidha Mhetre.He also called Trax jeep by making telephone.Thereafter, P.W. 6 and others lifted Chandrakant and kept him in the said jeep.Chandrakant had head injuries, hand injury and injury on stomach and there were plenty of injuries on his person.According to the prosecution, when they were lifting and keeping Chandrakant Mhetre in the jeep, one person by name Ambaji Gandi, arrived there.The said Ambaji Gandi told them that, he had received head injury.He further told them that, he was also assaulted by same persons who had assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre.According to P.W. 6 - Sunil, the said Ambaji Gandi, who is also P.W.17, was taken in the said jeep.According to P.W.6, thereafter, the said jeep was taken towards civil hospital.In the jeep, P.W. 12 Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura had also accompanied the deceased and P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi.6] According to P.W. 6 - Sunil, after departure of jeep to civil hospital, he went to his home.At around 8.00 P.M., one person came to his residence and informed him that, Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.Immediately, after receipt of the information about death of Chandrakant Mhetre, P.W. 6 informed other persons residing near his 11/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealshouse and thereafter went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.According to him, he had narrated entire incident to police.Accordingly, police had scribed his complaint as per his narration.He was shown this complaint.The contents of the complaint were read over to him and thereafter he put his signature on it.7] It can further be seen from the evidence of P.W. 12 - Jagannath as well as the evidence of P.W. 23 - PI Gajanan Huddedar, IO that, on the way, when deceased Chandrakant and P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi were taken towards civil hospital in a jeep, one police jeep came from opposite direction.Hence, the jeep was halted.Bhimashankar Mhetre, cousin of the deceased, who was in the jeep, got down from the jeep and narrated the incident to PI Huddedar and requested that, one police constable be deputed alongwith them for their escort.Accordingly, PI Huddedar deputed police constable Sriman alongwith Bhimashankar and others for escorting them to civil hospital.The deceased Chandrakant was brought to hospital.He was examined by P.W. 4 - Dr. Shashikant Pakale who was, at the relevant time, attached to Casualty Department.He examined Chandrakant Mhetre and noticed that, his condition was very poor and he was in a drowsy 12/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealscondition.Taking into consideration the nature of serious injuries, he was referred to Surgery Department.However, Chandrakant Mhetre succumbed to his injuries in a short period.8] From the material placed on record, it would reveal that, on the basis of oral complaint of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, Crime No. 209 of 2002 came to be registered.From the evidence of P.W. 23 - PI Gajanan Huddedar, it would reveal that, he had initially assigned the case to P.W. 22 - PI Mahesh Joshi.PI Mahesh Joshi recorded statement of five witnesses on 11th October, 2002 itself, including that of P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.On 12th October 2002, he visited civil hospital and drew inquest panchanama between 8.30 to 10.15 A.M. On the same day, he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant Sunil as well as other persons.On 13 th October 2002, he visited the place of occurrence and drew spot panchanama.On 13th October 2002, he recorded statement of four persons, including that of P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura.On 15th October 2002, he recorded statement of Rajmukar Sriman.201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals17] We will first examine the evidence of three eye witnesses, including that of the complainant.18] P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav states that, he was serving as moulder in foundary of one Fayyaz Khan and his working hours were from 9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. every day and though he had attended his duty from 9.00 A.M. on 11th October 2002, on account of communal riots, his proprietor sent him home at about 12.30 P.M. He states that, he returned to home at 1.00 P.M. He took lunch and remained in home till 4.00 P.M. At around 4.15 P.M., he came near the stage, which was erected for the purpose of celebration of Navaratri festival.The other persons residing in the locality, including P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki were sitting on the platform.When they were sitting, at around 4.30P.M., 10-12 persons from Muslim community arrived near the platform.They started abusing the Goddess in filthy and dirty language.They broke the idol of Goddess and Lion and other material on the stage.The 10-12 persons took out weapons from their persons.He sates that, Chandrakant Mhetre came on his motorcycle from the 22/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealseastern side and those 10-12 persons, thinking that Police Officer was coming on motorcycle, started running towards Nai Jindagi Chowk.The 10-12 persons first ran towards southern side and thereafter they started running towards eastern side.Chandrakant Mhetre stationed his motorcycle near the stage and started following them.He further states that, he along with P.W. 11 - Mahadev and P.W. 14 - Iresh and other persons, started following Chandrkant Mhetre.While they were following Chandrakant Mhetre, four persons from Muslim community came from opposite direction i.e. from Noorani Chowk.He further states that, 10-12 persons to whom they were following and four more persons coming from opposite direction, came together and started advancing towards them.He states that, he could identify those four persons, one amongst them was accused No.1 - M. D. Shaikh.He states that he does not know the name of other persons.Accused No.1 gave direction to other persons saying "Kato Todo Khalas Karo".He states that, Chandrakant Mhetre was breathing.He states that, while they were lifting and keeping Chandrakant Mhetre in the jeep, at that time, one person by name Ambaji Gandi arrived there and he told them that he also received head injury.He further told them that, he was also 24/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsassaulted by same persons who had assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre.He states that.Ambaji Gandi also disclosed the names of the assailants.As such, Ambaji Gandi was also taken in the said jeep.19] P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav further states that, after departure of the jeep to civil hospital, he went to his home.On the same day, at around 8.00 P.M., one person came to his residence and informed that, Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.After receipt of the information about death of Chandrakant Mhetre, he had informed the other persons residing nearby his house and thereafter went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.He has narrated entire incident to police.Accordingly, police had scribed his complaint as per his narration.He further states that, at the time of occurrence of incident of assault on Chandrakant Mhetre, he (witness) had worn banian and full pant on his person and that, there were blood-stains on his banian.He further states that, hence the police had seized his banian.In his cross-examination, he states that he had only once signed at Police Station.He states that, on 11 th October 25/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals2002, he had gone to Police Station at around 8.00 P.M. He states that, his signature was put by him at around 11.00 P.M. or 11.30 P.M. There are various omissions and contradictions in his evidence.However, he states that police were in hurry and therefore though he wanted to mention many things in the complaint, the same were not recorded by the police.He further states that in spite of his request to the police to write names of some of the accused, police did not listen to him.He states that, he did not feel it necessary to accompany Chandrakant Mhetre alongwith others while he was being removed to hospital by jeep.The reasoning given by this witness is that, since he was frightened, he did not go with them to the hospital.He further admits that, immediately after removal of Chandrakant Mhetre to hospital, he did not go to Police Station to 29/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealslodge complaint, though he felt necessary to lodge complaint immediately.20] The next eye witness is P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav.He states that, he was serving as driver of one Ratan Gangaram Shivsingwale.On 11th October 2002, he had gone to attend duty.However, he was told by his employer that, since there was bandh, he should not take out his vehicle from the house.He therefore returned to his home.He was in his house till 4.00 P.M. At around 4.15 P.M. to 4.30 P.M., he went to Vishnu Nagar since there was ceremony arranged of performing pooja of Goddess Shakti Devi.Pooja was to be performed at 5.30 P.M. at the hands of Chandrakant Mhetre.He states that, alongwith him, P.W. 6 - Sunil and P.W. 14 - Iresh were also sitting on the stage.He states that, there were some other persons in the surrounding area and amongst them were P.W. 12 - Jagannath and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura.He further states that, 10-12 persons 30/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsbelonging to Muslim community started running towards stage by giving slogans "Allah Takdir Bachha Bachha Kahata Hai Hamara Islam Sachha Hai".They started abusing the Goddess in filthy and dirty language.Rest of the narration given by him is almost similar to that of P.W. 6 - Sunil.He also states about accused No.1 saying to other persons pointing out at Chandrakant Mhetre that. "Saleko Maro Todo Khalas Karo".He states that, while removing Chandrakant Mhetre in jeep, he was saying "Wachwa Wachwa".21] In his cross-examination, P.W. 11 admits that there was profuse bleeding from the body of Chandrakant Mhetre.However, there were no blood stains on his clothes, though there were blood-stains on his hands.Suggestions were given to this witness that, deceased Chandrakant Mhetre was head of Majrewadi Branch of Shiv-sena Party and that, prior to Chandrakant, his employer Shivsingwale was the head of Shiv-sena party of that area."6/-...............I did not fear after seeing taking of swords by those persons from their persons.Nobody rush at me to assault.So also those 10 32/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals to 12 persons did not rush at other persons who were present surrounding to Pandal.There were about 30 persons from Vishnu Nagar were present near the Pandal.The incident lasted till 15 to 20 minutes.During period of 15 to 20 minutes I myself on my own did not inform police.I did feel necessary to intimate police about the incident however I did not inform police.23] The another eye witness is P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.In his evidence, he also states that, he alongwith others, including P.W. 6 - Sunil and P.W. 11 - Mahadev were present on the stage.Similarly, others, including P.W. 12 - Jagannath and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna were also present in pandal.Then he gave narration of the incident.He states that, 10-12 persons came from Shobhanagar and started advancing towards them.They were giving slogans which are reproduced hereinabove.He further states that while giving slogans, which are reproduced hereinabove, they climbed on the stage.They 35/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsstarted abusing the Goddess in filthy and dirty language.They lifted the idol of Goddess and threw away on the street.They took out the weapons from concealed portion of their persons and started throwing away the articles which were kept for performing pooja.Meanwhile, Chandrakant Mhetre started coming towards stage on his motorcycle.Those persons, who were present on the stage, after seeing Chandrakant Mhetre coming on motorcycle, felt as if police person is coming, because of his physical structure.Hence, they started first running to southern side and then towards western side.Chandrakant Mhetre, after reaching the stage, parked his motorcycle near the stage and started chasing those 10-12 persons.The said witness alongwith P.W. 6 - Sunil, P.W. 11 - Mahadev and others followed Chandrakant Mhetre by running.At Murtuza Fabrication, four other persons joined those 10-12 persons, one of them was M.D. Shaikh.He said to others "Saleko Maro Todo Khalas Karo" Thereafter, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz and Rehman Chitapure (Juvenile) assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre, as a result he fell down.He states that, he and others orally reported this to P.W. 11 - Jagannath and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna.Thereafter, all of them went to the spot where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying.They lifted Chandrakant Mhetre and brought him towards the stage.At that time, his intestine had come out and he was pressing the same by hand.Meanwhile, Trax jeep of uncle of Chandrakant Mhetre came there.Bhimashankar Mhetre arrived there on his motorcycle.They kept Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi in the jeep.He states that, at around 10.00 P.M., he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.Thereafter, he went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.He states that, after a lapse of one month, he himself had gone to Police Station and produced blood-stained white shirt before the police.Various omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in his cross-examination.He states that, after the assault on Chandrakant Mhetre, within 5-6 months they went to that spot.He states that, there was some difficulty to go over the spot where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying.The witness volunteered that, they felt fear in their mind.201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals25] P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti is also a driver by profession.He states that, on 11th October, 2002 at around 5.00 P.M or so, he was present near pandal, erected for performing celebration of Navratri festival at Vishnu Nagar.On that day, pooja of Goddess was to be performed at the hands of Chandrakant Mhetre.He states that, some persons were present on the stage and some persons were present near pandal and they were P.W. 6 - Sunil, P.W. 11 - Mahadev and P.W. 14 - Iresh and others.He states that, he alongwith some others were present by the side of pandal.He narrates about 10-12 persons from Muslim community, running towards pandal, giving slogans which are reproduced hereinabove.They climbed on the stage, lifted the idol of Goddess and thrown it from the stage and were throwing away other material.He further states that, those persons took out concealed weapons from their persons.Meanwhile, Chandrakant Mhetre came from opposite direction towards stage on the motorcycle.Then he gave similar narration as given by other witnesses about those persons feeling that he was a Police Officer and therefore they started running towards backside portion of the pandal.He states that, those persons started running towards Nai Zindagi Chowk.He states that, Chandrakant Mhetre, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, 39/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsP.W. 11 - Mahadev and others, started chasing those persons by running.He remained on the spot where he was standing in a frightened position and also other persons were present near him where he was standing.After sometime, some Muslim persons came towards pandal from southern side i.e. from backside of pandal.He has identified those persons to be accused No.1 and other accused.They removed petrol pipe of motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre and set it on fire.M.D. Shaikh was saying to others "Todo Fodo Kato Sale Ko Mat Chhodo".After setting the motorcycle on fire, those persons ran away.After lapse of some time, P.W. 6 - Sunil arrived there.He told him that, Chandrakant Mhetre has been assaulted near Murtuz Steel Fabrication.He therefore, alongwith P.W. 6 - Sunil, P.W. 11 - Mahadev, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna and P.W. 14 - Iresh and others went towards the place where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying.Thereafter, they brought Chandrakant Mhetre near pandal.There were many injuries on the person of Chandrakant Mhetre and blood was oozing.Meanwhile, Trax jeep arrived.Thereafter, Bhimashankar arrived on his motorcycle.Chandrakant and Ambaji were kept in the jeep.He, alongwith others, including P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna took Chandrakant Mhetre And Ambaji Gandi in a jeep to civil hospital.While they were 40/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsproceeding towards civil hospital, on their way police van was seen by him at Venu Gopal Nagar.After seeing the police vehicle, jeep was halted.Bhimashankar requested police that one police constable be deputed alongwith them to hospital.Accordingly, police constable accompanied them to civil hospital.Chandrakant Mhetre was moaning and was saying that Sadique Shaikh, Mashak Pathan, Imtiyaz Hundekari, Aziz Shaikh, Rahiman Chitapure, Umar Shaikh, Chandsab Banglorewala and others had assaulted him.He states that, Chandrakant told to them that, he was assaulted by swords and knife.He states that, thereafter, jeep was taken to civil hospital, Solapur.Both the injured persons were admitted in the hospital.After sometime, he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.On the same day, at around 11.15 P.M., he went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.His statement was recorded by police.26] In his cross-examination, P.W. 12 states that, he alongwith Nagnath Pagdyakaul and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna went to Police Station.They went by walking.They left civil hospital at around 10.00 P.M. Though he admits that, he was knowing that curfew was imposed on account of riot situation, he did not take any assistance of 41/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealspolice in order to go to Police Station.He states that, they remained at civil hospital for about 3-4 hours and no police officer from Vijapur Naka Police Station came to civil hospital while they were so present at the civil hospital.He however admits that, police who had come with them in vehicle was present in civil hospital.He further admits that, there was police chowky at the distance of 10' in front of Casualty Department.27] The evidence of P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura is also on the similar lines.He states that, on 11th October 2002, at around 5.00P.M., pooja of Goddess was to be performed at the hands of 43/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsChandrakant Mhetre.Therefore, he alongwith Nagnath and P.W. 12 - Jagannath were waiting for Chandrakant Mhetre near stage.P.W. 6 - Sunil, P.W. 11 - Mahadev and others were sitting on the stage.At that time, 10-12 Muslim persons started advancing from Shobhadevi Nagar towards them.They were giving slogans, which are reproduced hereinabove.They also started abusing the Goddess in filthy and dirty language.Thereafter, they climbed on the stage, broke the idol of Goddess and Lion and also destroyed other material.In the meanwhile, Chandrakant Mhetre started coming on motorcycle from Shobhadevi Nagar side towards them.After seeing Chandrakant Mhetre, 10-12 persons started running away towards southern side.They were saying "police van came".Rest of the evidence of this witness is similar to that of P.W. 12 - Jagannath.He states that, after motorcycle was set on fire, those persons went towards Shobhadevi Nagar.After departure of those 15-16 persons, Sunil Yadav rushed at pandal and informed about Chandrakant Mhetre being assaulted, as also informed that there was no one to assist him and requested them to assist him.Thereafter, he alongwith 4-5 persons went to the spot.They lifted Chandrakant and kept him in the pandal.Chandrakant Mhetre had sustained four injuries on his abdomen.Meanwhile, 44/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsdriver of Bhimashankar Mhetre brought his jeep.Bhimashankar also arrived there by his motorcycle.201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsHe states that, thereafter, Chandrakant Mhetre was taken inside the hospital and within 10-12 minutes, they were informed that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.He states that, thereafter, at around 10.00 or 11.00 P.M., he himself, Nagnath Pagdyakaul, Vitthal Dikshit went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.They reported the incident to the police.Their statements were recorded.He further admits in his cross-examination that, he did not inform police about the incidence.Though he admits that, there is police chowky in the campus of civil hospital, he states that there was no police at police chowky.He states that, he does not know whether 47/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsthere is police chowky in front of Casualty Department in civil hospital.This witness further states that, he had not gone to Police Station on 13th October, 2002 nor police had come to his place."9. ....................... On the very next day of incidence, I learnt that complaint has been lodged about the incidents.Said fact was learnt by me from Sunil Yadav, in the evening of next day incidence.29] Having considered the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, who are either eye witnesses or witnesses who had accompanied the deceased, we will consider the evidence of Police Officers.30] P.W.20 - PSI Namdeo Shinde has recorded the First Information Report.He states in his cross-examination that, on 11 th October 2002, he was on duty at Vijapur Naka Police Station.On the 48/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealssame day, riot took place in Solapur City between Muslim and Hindu communities.They were on high alert and busy entire day.On 11 th October 2002, Sunil Yadav came to Vijapur Naka Police Station.His complaint was scribed by him through writer Rathod.He states that, the complainant, after recording his complaint, signed on it in his presence.He has also signed on the complaint.He states that, thereafter, the complaint was handed over to P.S.O. for registering C.R. Thereafter, he proceeded for Bandobast duty.31] The next witness is P.W. 22 - P.I. Mahesh Joshi, who was the first Investigating Officer.He states that, during 1 st October 2001 to 31st October 2002, he was attached to Vijapur Naka Police Station as Police Inspector (Crime).On 11 th October 2002, C.R. No. 209/2002 was assigned to him for investigation.He states that, first he perused the complaint.On 11th October 2002, he recorded statement of five witnesses, including P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav, P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.He states that, he drew seizure panchanama of clothes of deceased between 10.30 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. at civil hospital, Solapur.It is true on statement of witnesses namely Nagnath Pagdyakaul, Jagannath Shivshetti, Ramkrushna Sura, Bhimashankar Mhetre, Rudrappa Havin, dates have been mentioned on the top of statements.It is true I have not put date below my signature on statements of these five witnesses."P.W.22 further states that, from 11th October 2002 to 13th October 2002, he did not feel it necessary to make inquiry with PC Sriman.A specific suggestion has been put to him that, with the help of 56/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsCorporator Bhimashankar Mhetre, he had called all Shiv-sena Party members and got their statements recorded.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::He states that, on 11th October 2002, All India Muslim Vikas Parishad had declared "Solapur Bandh".Those days were Navratri festival.In his jurisdiction, he had posted police staff on duty.He himself alongwith his staff members was patrolling within his jurisdiction.He states that, on the same day, at 10.30 A.M. at various places in the jurisdiction of Vijapur Naka Police Station, incidents of pelting of stones started.He states that, at around 5.45 P.M., when he alongwith his staff members were present at Venu Gopal Nagar, one jeep came there from Vishnu Nagar side and halted near them.From the said jeep, one person by name Bhimashankar got down and approached them.He reported to them that, at Vishnu Nagar, some Muslim persons assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre and that said Chandrakant Mhetre is being carried by them to hospital.He requested them that, one police constable be deputed alongwith them to escort them.Therefore, he went near the said jeep and saw injured 57/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsperson Chandrakant Mhetre.There were many injuries on the person of Chandrakant Mhetre and he was moaning.There was one more person in the injured condition, sitting in the jeep.There were also 3-4 other persons.He therefore deputed PC Sriman alongwith those persons to civil hospital, Solapur by the said jeep.He thereafter immediately intimated PSI Shinde through Thane Amaldar on wireless to take necessary legal action about injured persons who were being taken to civil hospital.Thereafter, he along with his staff members proceeded to Vishnu Nagar.He visited pandal which was erected for the purpose of celebration of Navratri festival.He saw the broken pieces of the idol of Goddess and Lion, lying here and there.He deputed two police staff on duty on that spot and gave intimation to Thane Amaldar of Control Room for providing Reserve Police Force.On 11th October 2002, at around 10.30 P.M., he contacted Thane Amaldar on phone.He therefore gave directions to Thane Amaldar to assign C.R. No.209/2002 to P.I. Joshi for the purpose of investigation.He deposes about curfew order being imposed.He states that, from 15th October 2002 till 29th October 2002, he was on leave.In his absence, investigation was carried out by P.I. Joshi and 58/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsP.I. Bhosale.He states that on 3rd November 2002, he had recorded statement of four witnesses.He further states that, on 3rd November 2002, wife of accused Abdul Ajij Fakruddin Shaikh, produced clothes of the said accused.He further states about steps taken by him for arresting the accused persons.He states that on 9th November 2002, he seized blood-stained clothes of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki in the presence of two panchas under panchanama.He further states that, on the said date, he also recorded statement of witness Gurusiddh Mhetre and Vijaykumar Mhetre.He states that, on 10th November 2002, on memorandum of accused No.5, the weapons which were concealed in the roof of tin sheets were recovered.He further deposes about various relatives of other accused, producing the clothes of the accused used in the crime.35] The incident can be divided into three parts.[A] In the first part, when P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav, P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, were on the dais and P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura alongwith others were in pandal, waiting for deceased Chandrakant Mhetre, a group of 10-12 Muslim persons arrived at pandal, shouting slogans.They were armed with deadly weapons.Accused No.3 - Imtiyaz and Rehman, who was juvenile, assaulted the deceased and the deceased fell down.In this part, P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi has been assaulted by some assailants.However, there is uncertainty as to at what point this was done.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::[C] In the third part, the assailants came back to pandal, set the motorcycle on fire and thereafter left the spot.When assailants were returning to pandal, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav, P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki also followed them.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals As per the prosecution case, after the incident was over P.W. 6, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 brought the deceased near the stage from the place where he was lying.A jeep was called.Bhimashankar Mhetre, cousin of the deceased also arrived there.Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi (P.W.17) were taken to hospital in the jeep.When the jeep was going to hospital, on the way, they came across the jeep of police.P.W. 23 was requested by Bhimashankar to give police assistance.P.W. 23 gave one police constable i.e. P.C. Sriman to accompany them to the hospital.They arrived in the hospital and Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi (P.W. 17) were admitted in the hospital.After admitting them in the hospital, within short time, Chandrakant Mhetre was declared to be dead.36] Now let's examine, in brief, the version given by the following prosecution witnesses:-P.W 6 - Sunil Yadav37] As per his version, at around 4.15 P.M., he came near the stage for the purpose of pooja.Meanwhile, Chandrakant Mhetre came there on motorcycle.Those 10-12 persons felt that, police had come and therefore they started running towards Nai Jindagi Chowk.Chandrakant Mhetre, after parking his motorcycle, started following them.This witness, alongwith P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki also started following them.Those persons pushed away motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre.They poured kerosene on the motorcycle and put it on fire by a matchstick and thereafter those persons ran away.Thereafter, he telephoned cousin brother of Chandrakant viz Gurusiddh and called Trax jeep by making telephone.In the meantime, Chandrakant Mhetre was 63/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsbrought near the stage.While they were lifting and keeping Chandrakant Mhetre in jeep, one person by name Ambaji Gandi (P.W.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::17) arrived there.He told that, he was also assaulted by the same assailants.As such, he was also kept in the jeep.In the said jeep, alongwith other persons, P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura were also there.At around 8.00 P.M., he came to know that Chandrakant Mhetre had died.At around 8.00 P.M., he went to Police Station and lodged an oral report.He had put his signature on FIR between 11.00 P.M. to 11.30 P.M. According to him, though he had given many details while lodging FIR, police did not scribe them as they were in hurry and there was lot of interruption.Though he left the Police Station at around 11.00 P.M and 11.30 P.M., he was not in a position to tell whether P.I. Joshi was present in the Police Station when he had gone to the Police Station.According to him, though he felt necessary to intimate the police about the incident, he did not inform the police.He states that, he did not apprehend danger to his life and therefore did not run away from the spot to save himself.This witness also went home, after Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi were taken to hospital in jeep.He remained at home till 10.30 P.M. During night time, he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.Even after learning about death of Chandrakant Mhetre, he did not go to civil hospital nor did he go to residence of Chandrakant Mhetre.According to him, he met P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav only after he received summons from the Court.According to him, he had gone to police chowky at around 10.45 P.M. and narrated incident to the police.According to this witness, Sunil Yadav had put on pant and shirt on his person.P.W.14 - Iresh Kaki39] P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki has also stated in his evidence that on 11th October 2002, pooja of Goddess was arranged at 5.30 P.M. The version given by this witness is almost identical with that of P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav.He also states that, at around 10.00 P.M., he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was not more.He went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.However, according to him, he remained on the same spot where he was standing, as he was in a frightened position.Insofar as the third part is concerned, he states that, after sometime, Muslim persons came towards pandal from southern side.According to this witness, the persons who arrived at the place of incident, removed petrol pipe of motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre and set the motorcycle on fire.At that time, M.D. Shaikh was saying others "Todo Fodo Kato Sale Ko Mat Chhodo".- Ramkrushna Sura and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki and other proceeded towards the place where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying.Thereafter, they brought Chandrakant Mhetre near pandal.Immediately thereafter Bhimashankar Mhetre arrived on motorcycle.Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi were kept in a jeep.Bhimashankar requested police that one police constable be deputed alongwith them to hospital.Accordingly, one police constable accompanied them to civil hospital.According to this witness, Chandrakant Mhetre was moaning and giving names of accused persons who had assaulted him.He was accompanied by P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna and others.He admits that, though they were in hospital for 3-4 hours and though there were police chowky at civil hospital, neither he nor any other persons including Bhimashankar Mhetre - cousin of the deceased, lodged any complaint with police chowky.He further admits that, though there was public telephone installed in the Casualty Department and though there was telephone available in police chowky, they did not phone Vijapur Naka Police Station, informing them about the incident.He categorically admits that, on 11th October, 2002 he did not meet Sunil Yadav, after departure from civil hospital.His statement was first recorded by police constable.He admits that, police also did not record his statement on 13 th October, 2002 by visiting his house.This witness states about oral dying declaration given by deceased Chandrakant Mhetre to his cousin Bhimashankar Mhetre.According to him, immediately within 10-12 minutes, after Chandrakant Mhetre was brought to the hospital, they came to know that he was no more.They remained in hospital for 2-3 hours.Thereafter, at around 10.00 or 11.00 P.M, he alongwith others went to Vijapur Naka Police Station.He states that, his statement was recorded by police.He further states that, on the date of incident he had worn pant and shirt and while lifting Chandrakant Mhetre, there were blood stains on his pant.He states that, he was asked to leave his pant at the Police Station in the next day morning.He states that, it was produced before the police, which was seized under panchanama.He further states that, on the said date, he was told by 70/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealspolice that, there were blood stains on the banian of Sunil Yadav and that banian was lying on the table when he went to Police Station.He further states that, police had also seized clothes of Ambaji Gandi in the Police Station on the same day.He further admits that, though they were in hospital for 2-3 hours, Bhimashankar did not inform anything to any one regarding the incident.He further admits that, Bhimashankar did not tell doctors about whatever facts narrated by Chandrakant Mhetre on the way to civil hospital.P.W. 20 - Namdeo Ganpat Shinde42] Perusal of evidence of P.W.20, would reveal that, at the relevant time i.e. on 11th October, 2002, he was on duty at Vijapur Naka Police Station.On the said date, riot took place in Solapur City between Muslim and Hindu communities.Police were on high alert 71/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsand busy entire day.On the said date, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav had come to Vijapur Naka Police Station.His complaint was scribed by him through the writer Rathod.The complaint was signed by P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav as well as this witness.He states that, he sat in the room of Thane Amaldar while recording complaint of Sunil Yadav.He further states that, on the said date, besides him, no other Police Officer was present at the Police Station.He further states that, on 11th October, 2002, he left Vijapur Naka Police Station at 10.30 P.M. On the same day again, at 12.00 midnight, he had visited Vijapur Naka Police Station along with PC Rathod.He further submits that, at that time, no Police Officer was present at Vijapur Naka Police Station.However, he was told by PSO that, after his departure, some Police Officers visited the Police Station and they had also left the Police Station.He states that, he was told by PSO that, P.I. Huddedar and P.I. Joshi had visited the Police Station after his departure at 10.30 P.M. He further states that, he learnt that P.I. Joshi and P.I. Huddedar were patrolling in the jurisdiction of Police Station between 10.30 P.M. to 00.15 A.M. in midnight.P.W. 22 - P.I. Mahesh Joshi43] Perusal of evidence of this witness would reveal that, on 11th October 2002, C.R. No.209 of 2002 was assigned to him for investigation.He states that, first he perused the complaint.On 11 th October, 2002, he had recorded the statement of five witnesses, including that of P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.He had drawn inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased on 12th October, 2002 between 8.30 A.M. to 10.15 A.M. On the same day, he had also drawn seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased between 10.30 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. On 13 th October, 2002, he had drawn spot panchanama.On the said date, he had also recorded statement of four witnesses, including P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura and Bhimashankar, the cousin of the deceased, who had not been examined as witness.On 15 th October 2002, he had also recorded the statement of police constable Rajkumar Sriman, who was deputed by P.W. 23 - P. I. Huddedar to accompany deceased Chandrakant and other injured person in the 73/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsjeep to civil hospital.44] According to him, on 11th October, 2002, the investigation of crime No.209 of 2002 was assigned to him.On the said date, he recorded statements of five witnesses, including that of P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.He drew inquest panchanama of dead body on 12 th October, 2002 between 8.30 P.M to 10.15 P.M and also drew seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased.On 13th October 2002, he drew spot panchanama.On the said date, he also recorded statements of four witnesses, including P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura and Bhimashankar Mhetre, the cousin of the deceased.On 15 th October, 2002, he recorded statement of police constable Rajaram Sriman and on 23rd October 2002, he recorded statement of injured witness Ambaji Gandi (P.W.17).P.W. 23 - P.I. Gajanan Huddedar45] This witness was, at the relevant time, in-charge of Vijapur Naka Police Station as Senior Police Inspector.On 11 th October 2002, 74/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsthere was "Solapur Bandh", declared by All India Muslim Vikas Parishad.His evidence would reveal that, on that day, there were instances of pelting of stones at various places in the area under his jurisdiction.He states that, on that day, at around 10.30 A.M., riot started in his area.Therefore, this witness and his staff members had visited those spots.Thereafter, he alongwith his staff proceeded to Vishnu Nagar.He visited pandal, saw the broken pieces of idol of Goddess.2] Appellants have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2003, thereby convicting the Appellants/ original accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the following offences and imposing sentences as narrated hereinbelow : 3/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals(i) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 147 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 1,000/- (RS ONE THOUSAND ONLY) EACH IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR THREE MONTHS.(ii) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 148 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 1,000/- (RS 4/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals ONE THOUSAND ONLY) EACH IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR THREE MONTHS.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::(iii) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 10,000/- (Rs. TEN THOUSAND ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR TWO YEARS.(iv) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable 5/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals under Section 307 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR TEN YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 5,000/- (Rs. FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR ONE YEAR.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::(vi) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq 6/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 435 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR THREE YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::2,000/- (Rs. TWO THOUSAND ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR SIX MONTHS.(vii) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 295 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 5,00/- (Rs. FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR TWO MONTHS.(viii) Accused No.1 Mahiboob Daudsaheb Sahikh, accused No. 2 Abdul Ajit Fakroddin Shaikh, accused No.3 - Imtiyaz Noorahamad 7/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals Hundekari, accused No. 4 Sadik Saipansab Shaikh, accused No.5 Mashak Bakshubhai Pathan, accused No.6 Mahamad Rafiq Shamshoddin Shaikh are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 3 r.w. S. 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. FOR THREE YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs 5,00/- (Rs. FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) EACH, IN DEFAULT TO SUFFER R.I. FOR TWO MONTHS.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::According to P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav - the first informant, accused No.3::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::- Imtiyaz Hundekari and Rahiman Chitapure (Juvenile) assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre by a sword.One Umar Shaikh thrusted knife in the stomach of Chandrakant Mhetre and others had assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre by swords.P.W. 6 immediately telephoned the cousin of Chandakant Mhetre viz. 10/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::An autopsy of the dead body of Chandrakant Mhetre was carried out by P.W. 16 - Dr. Pradeep Jaykumar.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::On 13/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals23rd October 2002, he recorded statement of injured Ambaji Gandi (P.W.17).::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::On resuming his duty on 30 th October, 2002, he again took over the investigation of the said crime.He carried further investigation, including seizure of blood-stained clothes of the witnesses.It is the further prosecution case that, on memorandum under Section 27 of accused No.5 - Mashak Pathan, on 10th November, 2002, the sword used in the crime came to be recovered from tin-sheets of the house of the said accused.It is further the prosecution case that, in the meantime, either wife or mother or brother of accused persons produced blood-stained clothes of accused persons before the Investigating Agency.On 13 th November 2002, accused No.1 - Mahiboob Shaikh and subsequently on 21st November 2002, accused No.7 - Gulam Shaikh, were shown to be transferred from another C.R. to the present C.R. It is further the prosecution case that, subsequently, at the instance of other accused 14/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealspersons, the weapons which were used in the crime, also came to be seized.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur.Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, it came to be committed to the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::The charge was read over and explained to the accused who were originally eight in number.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.However, accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Insofar as accused Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, they were acquitted of all the charges.Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, these appeals have been filed by the Appellants.During pendency of Appeals, accused No.4 - Sadik Saipansab Shaikh has died and as such, appeal stood abated against 15/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealshim.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::11] We have heard Mr. Gupte, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1, Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.3.12] Mr. Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, he has been totally falsely implicated in the present crime.It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, at the relevant time, accused No.1 was already in police custody.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the accused was an editor of newspaper in Solapur.Accused No.1 had exposed many ministers and politicians and other higherups.He was a prominent leader of Muslim Organization.He submitted that, only in order to take a revenge, accused No.1 has been falsely implicated.All the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants have vehemently attacked the evidence of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev 16/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsJadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, who are eye witnesses.It is submitted that, their evidence is full of omissions, contradictions and improvements.It is submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, evidence of these witnesses can be said to be credible.It is submitted that, Investigating Agency, with the help of these witnesses as well as P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, have created a story so as to implicate the people from Muslim community.The learned Counsel submitted that conviction on the basis of the evidence of such witnesses would not be sustainable in law.It is further submitted that, from the material placed on record, it would reveal that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner but it was one sided, so as to ensure that the persons from Muslim community are implicated in the said crime.The learned Counsel therefore submitted that, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, appeals deserve to be allowed and the order of conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::The learned APP further submitted that, on the contrary, if their evidence would have been similar, the same would have been attacked on the ground that their evidence is stereotype and as such, the witnesses are tutored.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::14] With the assistance of the learned APP and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Appellants, we have scrutinized the entire evidence.P.W. 16 - Dr Pradeep is a medical expert, who has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased.From his evidence as well as from postmortem report, it could be noted that the deceased had sustained following external and internal injuries:::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:07 :::"External injuries:(1) Incised wound behind left ear parietal region about 3'' x ½''.(2) Incised wound on occipital region about 4'' x ½''.(3) Incised wound on right parietal region 4'' x ½'.Piece of bone was removed (skull bone).(4) Incised wound on vault of skull about 2'' x ½'' bone seen clinically.(6) Incised wound on right occipito-parieto region, injury'' above injury No.5, 3'' x ½'', two in numbers.(7) Incised wounds (five in numbers) about 5'' x ¼'', on right upper arm, vertically and horizontally placed.(8) Stab wound on right side of abdomen, 3'' from umbilicus, 2 '' x 1'' Cavity deep.(9) Stab wound below umbilicus, 3'' below about 2'' x 1/4'' Cavity deep.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals (10) Stab wound on left side of abdomen, 5" from umbilicus, 2'' x 1'' x cavity deep.(11) Chopp wound on right wrist joint, 4'' x 3'' length, bones and joints are visible and the hand is connected with skin only.(12) Sutured wound above and side of left wrist joint, about 4'' in length.(13) Left hand middle finger perminal phalangeel amputation seen.(14) Incised wound on right palm, 3'' x 1''.""Internal injuries:(2) Skull there was # of right parietal region about 3'' in length, # vault of skull about 3'' in length, # occipital bone about 5'' in length.(3) Brain-Congested and cedematus, Sub-dural hamotoma all over brain marked left, parietal and right frontal region."16] Though the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses, the perusal of record would reveal that, the evidence of following witnesses would be relevant viz. (1) P.W. 1 - Sunil Yadav, (2) P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav (3) P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, 20/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals(4) P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, (5) P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, (6) P.W. 22 - PI Mahesh Joshi, (7) P.W. 23 - PI Gajanan Huddedar, IO, (8) P.W 20 - PSI Namdeo Shinde and (9) P.W. 19 - PHC Dilip Ingale.Out of these witnesses, P.W. 11 - Sunil Yadav was the first informant as well as eye witness of the entire incident.P.W. 11 - Mahadev and P.W. 14 - Iresh were also eye witnesses of entire incident.P.W. 12 - Jagannath and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna have witnessed part of the incident.However, they have accompanied the deceased in the jeep when the deceased as well as P.W. 17 - Ambaji who was the another injured person, were being taken to the civil hospital.P.W. 20 - Namdeo Shinde was PSI, who had taken the complaint of the first informant P.W. 6 - Sunil through his writer Rathod.P.W. 19 - Dilip was Thane Amaldar to whom the complaint lodged by P.W. 6 - Sunil with PSI Shinde, was forwarded.It is further to be noted that on the date on which the incident occurred i.e. on 11 th October, 2002, PI Huddedar was in-charge of Vijapur Naka Police Station.21/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::Accused No. 3 - Imtiyaz and accused Rahiman Chitapure (Juvenile) assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre by a sword.Umar Shaikh thrusted knife in the stomach of Chandrakant Mhetre and others assaulted him by swords.Chandrakant Mhetre fell down on the ground.Thereafter, again, those 15-16 persons advanced towards the platform.They 23/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealspoured kerosene on the motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre and set it on fire by a matchstick.Thereafter, those persons ran away.At that time, witness and others accompanying him were at the backside of the stage by concealing their persons.He further states that, when those persons, after assaulting Chandrakant Mhetre, were advancing towards the stage, at that time he followed them from his house.Thereafter, he alongwith other office bearers of Mandal, lifted Chandrakant Mhetre and kept him near the stage at a distance of 350 to 400 feet.He states that, his house is situated at a distance of 50 feet away from the spot where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying.He immediately phoned cousin brother of Chandrakant viz. Gurusiddh Mhetre.The witness himself called a Trax jeep by making telephone call for removal of Chandrakant Mhetre.Thereafter, they lifted him and kept him in the said jeep.He states that, Chandrakant sustained head injuries, hand injury and injury on stomach and there were plenty of injuries on the person of Chandrakant Mhetre.In the said jeep, alongwith injured persons, P.W. No.12 - Jagannath, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna were also accompanying them.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::It will be relevant to refer to the following part of his cross-examination from paras 14 and 15 :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::"14/- ........................I have not stated before police Chandrakant Mhetre started running after those persons.I have stated before police that I myself, Iresh Kaki, Mahadu Jadhav, Kashinath Chavan, Ravi Kalyankar followed Chandrakant Mhetre.As police were in hurry and because of lot of interruption caused to police while scribing my complaint it is not so mentioned in my complaint I have stated before police that those 10 to 12 persons came via Noorani Chowk towards western side and then come towards eastern side.As police were in hurry and because in interruption caused to them it is not so mentioned in my complaint.I have stated before police amongst those 4 persons one of them was M.D. Shaikh and I do not know names of other persons.The police replied to me better first to record 26/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals name of assailants and then to record names of others.Those 4 persons assembled with 10 to 12 persons before assault took place on Chandrakant Mhetre.I have stated before police that accused No.1 was giving directions to other accused persons saying '' '' As police were in hurry, shortage of police staff, interruption caused to police by phone calls etc while scribing my complaint the police might have forgotten to so mentioned in my complaint.I have stated before police that besides accused Rahman, Imtiyaz and Umar Shaikh other accused persons had assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre by sword.As police were in hurry and because of interruption caused to them while scribing my complaint as narrated herein above by me it is not so mentioned in my complaint.I have stated before police that Umar Shaikh had thrusted knife in the stomach of Chandrakant Mhetre.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::For aforesaid reasons the police had not so stated in my complaint.I know Umar Shaikh, so also Rafique Shaikh.I have stated before police that after assault Chandrakant Mhetre had fall down on the ground.For aforesaid reason as narrated by me herein above the police had not so stated in my complaint.I have stated before police that the motor cycle of Chandrakant Mhetre was pushed on the ground and that kerosene was poured on it.For aforesaid reasons the police had not stated so in my complaint.I have stated before police that Myself along with my colleague had concealed our presence behind the back side portion of stage and watching the incident.For aforesaid reasons the police had not so stated in my complaint.I have stated before 27/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals police that from my house I came near stage.For similar reasons as stated aforesaid by me the police had not so stated in my complaint.I have not stated before Police that there was distance of 350 to 400 feet between the place where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying and the stage.I have not stated before police that the distance of 50 feet between my house and the place where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying."::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::"15/-..............I have not stated in my complaint before police that at the time of incident I had worn banian and pant on my person.I do not remember whether I have stated before police that while lifting Chandrakant Mhetre in the jeep there were blood stains on my banian.I have not stated in my complaint before police that Rafique Shaikh had thrusted knife in the stomach of Chandrakant Mhetre.My statement in my complaint that Rafique Shaikh had trusted knife in the stomach of Chandrakant Mhetre is not correct statement.I say it is incorrectly recorded by police.It is not happened that accused Rahaman and Imtiyaz Hundekari had thrusted knife in the abdomen of Chandrakant Mhetre."He further admits in his cross-examination that, on the date of lodging of the complaint, he did not find it necessary to point out the blood-stains on his banian to the police.He further admits that he, on his own, did not inform the police that there were blood-stains on his 28/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsbanian.It is the police who had called him at the Police Station alongwith his blood-stained banian.He has further admitted that, since Chandrakant Mhetre was to come at the place for performing pooja, he had gone there.He further admits that, he had not gone to civil hospital to see Chandrakant Mhetre, after he was admitted.He further admits that, he was not aware as to in which hospital Chandrakant Mhetre was taken by jeep.He further states that, he does not remember whether he made inquiry as to in which hospital Chandrakant Mhetre was taken for treatment.He further states that, he did not feel it necessary to go and see where he was taken to hospital.He further states in his evidence that, after Chandrakant Mhetre fell down and assailants started running towards pandal, he and his colleagues started following those persons, though he admits that, he felt it necessary to remove Chandrakant Mhetre to hospital before following those assailants.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::He states about six persons assaulting Chandrakant Mhetre and Chandrakant Mhetre falling down on the ground and the remaining persons still assaulting him.He states that, P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi was also there.After seeing the assault on deceased Chandrakant Mhetre, Ambaji Gandi started running towards house.He was also accosted by accused persons i.e. M. D. Shaikh and others.Mashak Pathan assaulted Ambaji.After assaulting Ambaji, all persons started advancing towards the stage.This witness has also identified the accused in the Court.He states that, thereafter, aforesaid persons came to the stage of Goddess.He states that, they also followed them.They saw that motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre was lying near stage and set on fire.Thereafter, all of them ran towards Shobha Devi Nagar.He further states that he and his companions phoned to residence of Chandrakant Mhetre and called vehicle.The jeep of 31/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsChandrakant Mhetre arrived.They lifted Chandrakant Mhetre and kept him in the jeep.Thereafter, Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi were removed to civil hospital.In his cross-examination, though he admits that, there was Navrati festival at Mhatre Vasti, he states that, it was not celebrated in their area and he could not tell the distance between his house and the place at Mhetre Vasti where Navratri festival was being celebrated.It will be relevant to refer to the following part of the cross-examination of this witness in para 6 and 7 :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::I did not apprehend danger to my life and therefore did not run away from that spot to save myself I did not apprehend danger to my life that those assailants would also assault me.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::(Due to recess Cross examination deferred).Sd/- x.x.x.Ist Ad-hoc A.S.J. Solapur Resumed on S.A. After recess.Cross examination by Advocate Shri R.N. Shaikh for all accused persons.22] P.W. 11 further states in his cross-examination that, after the incident, he went home.He remained at home till 10.30 P.M. or so.He states that, during night, he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.He states that, there was a rumor in the locality of Mhetre Vasti about death of Chandrakant Mhetre.However, he did not 33/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsnarrate about those persons from whom he learnt about death of Chandrakant Mhetre.About witnessing the incident by him, he volunteers that, he did narrate the incident to other persons who were residing in locality.He states that, he did not feel it necessary to go to civil hospital.He states that, even after learning about death of Chandrakant Mhetre, he did not go to civil hospital, nor did he go to residence of Chandrakant Mhetre.After his dispersing from the place of incident, he met Sunil Yadav only after receipt of summons from the Court.He states that, he had gone to police chowky at around 10.45 P.M. He states that, he went to police chowky to narrate the incident witnessed by him and he narrated the incident to police.He states that, it was noted by the police, though he does not remember whether he had signed the said statement.He states that, he remained in the police chowky for half an hour.Various omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in his cross-examination.He further states that, when they proceeded towards motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre, he was lying near Murtuz Fabrication and he was alive.He admits that, there was respect in his mind about Chandrakant Mhetre and he felt it necessary to rescue Chandrakant to provide him immediate medical aid.He further 34/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsadmits that, it was necessary first to approach Chandrakant Mhetre where he was lying, than following those assailants.He admits that, the incident of assault on Chandrakant Mhetre was going on for 10/15 minutes.He further admits that, when Chandrakant was being assaulted, he did not make any attempt to phone or call any other persons.He further admits that, he did not advise Chandrakant Mhetre, not to chase those assailants since they were holding weapons with them.He further admits that, no one else who were present near the stage, advised Chandrakant Mhetre not to chase those assailants as they were holding weapons with them.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::After seeing Chandrakant Mhetre being assaulted, Ambaji Gandi started proceeding towards his house.One of the assailants said "Saleko Maro Isko Bhi Masti Ayee".Thereafter, accused No.5 and one Navshad Hundekari assaulted Ambaji Gandi by the 36/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealssword.Thereafter, all of them ran towards the stage side.This witness and others also proceeded to stage through another lane.When they reached near the stage, they saw motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre was burning.His statement was recorded by police.He further states that, after a lapse of one month, as per directions of police, he himself, P.W. 6 - Sunil and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna handed over their respective shirts to police.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::24] In his cross-examination P.W. 14 states that, he went to Police Station at around 11.15 P.M or so.He states that, when he 37/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealswent to Police Station, he did not see P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav.He further states that, he did not see any other persons, including P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna at the Police Station.He states that, when he had been to temple at 10.00 P.M., he learnt about death of Chandrakant Mhetre.Though he admits that, distance between his house and the house of Ambaji Gandi is about 150-200', he did not inform the family members about Ambaji Gandi.He admits that, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav was alongwith him all along till arrival of Trax jeep.He states that, Ambaji Gandi was present at a distance of 10' away from the place where Chandrakant Mhetre was lying and he was frightened.He states that, he was also frightened and was standing by the side of road.He states in his cross-examination that, it did not happen that in his presence Sunil Yadav phoned for Trax jeep.38/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::He further admits that, they had not gone immediately to police chowky to lodge complaint.He further admits that, Bhimashankar Mhetre, Nagnath Pagdyakaul and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna were also standing in front of police chowky at that time.He further admits that, at that time, so many police personnel and staff members were visiting the hospital because riot took place on that day.He admits that, in his presence Bhimashankar or P.W.11 - Ramkrushna or Nagnath Pagdyakaul did not lodge complaint with police chowky at civil hospital, Solapur.He further admits that, at the threshold of Casualty Department, there was public telephone installed which could be operated by coin.He also admits that, there was also telephone available in the police chowky.They however did not phone to Vijapur Naka Police Station from civil hospital, informing them about the incident.He further admits that, in their presence, 42/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealspolice constable did not inform the Police Station on phone.Though he admits that, Sunil Yadav was his friend, he did not have friendly relations with Chandrakant Mhetre.He states that, on 11 th October 2002, he did not meet Sunil Yadav after departure from civil hospital.He states that, his statement was recorded first by police constable.On the said date, he was out of station.He further states that, he does not know as to who had broken the amplifier, speakers and other articles.He states that, he remained at the Police Station for about one hour.The learned APP had sought permission of the Trial Court to declare this witness as hostile and cross-examine him.After permission was granted, witness stated in his cross-examination that, he had not witnessed the incident and that is why he had deposed that he does not know the assailants of Chandrakant Mhetre.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:08 :::They lifted Chandrakant and kept him in jeep and also Ambaji Gandi who had sustained injury to his person.He states that, he himself, P.W. 12 - Jagannath, Bhimashankar and Nagnath were in the jeep.He states that, one police jeep had halted at Venugopal Nagar.After seeing police jeep, their jeep was stopped.Bhimashankar got down from the said jeep and approached the police.He took assistance of one police.The said police sat in their jeep.Thereafter, they started towards civil hospital.Part of his evidence is recorded in question answer form.It will be appropriate to reproduce the same.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::Q: What had happened in the jeep?Ans: Bhimashankar Mhetre questioned Chandrakant Mhetre replied to Bhimashankar Mhetre that MD Shaikh was saying that 'Maro, Todo, Khalas Karo'.Q: Whether Chandrakant Mhetre told names of assailants?Ans: He disclosed names of Ajij Shaikh, Shaikh, Sadik Shaikh, Mashak Pathan, Imtiyaz Hundekari, Rahiman Chitapure, Naushad Hundekari, Umar Shaikh, Chandsab Banglorewala Thereafter we went to Civil Hospital."45/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::He states that, there were blood-stains on his pant.He was asked to leave the pant at Police Station by police on the next day.He states that, in the Police Station, he had pointed out blood-stains on his pant to the police.He further states that there were blood-stains only on his pant and not on the clothes of other persons who accompanied him.It will be relevant to refer to following deposition of this witness from para 3:"3/-................The police had told me that there were blood stains on the banian of Sunil Yadav.I was also shown the banian of Sunil Yadav having blood stains by the police.Clothes of Ambaji Gandi were also shown to me in the police station on the same day.One shirt and one trouser (Payjama) of Ambaji Gandi having level were shown to me by the police.The banian was lying on table at police station when we went to police station........."He states that, on 11th October 2002, he himself and others on their own went to the Police Station.46/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals28] In the cross-examination of P.W.13 - Ramkrushna Sura, various omissions and contradictions have been brought on record in his cross-examination.It will be relevant to refer to the following deposition of this witness in his cross-examination from para 5 :"5/-......................Bhimashankar Mhetre was remained in Civil hospital with doctors for 2-3 hours.While Bhimashankar was so present in Civil Hospital, I was also present with him.Alike me Nagnath Pagdyakol, Jagannath Shivshetti and other 2-3 persons were also present in Civil hospital along with Bhimashankar Mhetre and myself.While we were so present alongwith Bhimashankar Mhetre, he did not tell anything to doctor regarding the incident.While I was so present along with Bhimashankar Mhetre, he did not tell anything to doctor about whatever facts narrated by Chandrakant Mhetre on the way to Civil Hospital.I do not remember whether police who had come with us to Civil hospital, met doctor, while admitting Chandrakant Mhetre in the hospital.The police who had accompanied with us in hospital was seen by me in the hospital.Said police remained with us in the civil hospital for about one hour."It will be further relevant to refer to his following deposition from para 9 :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::It is true till evening of next day of incidence, I was not aware as to who had lodged complaint about the incidence.On 11-10-2002 when my statement was recorded, I was not knowing whether Sunil Yadav has lodged complaint before police.I have not stated before police that Sunil Yadav had lodged complaint about incidence.I am read over portion bracketed marked A. I cannot assign any reason, why it is to mentioned by police in my statement......"In his cross-examination, he states that on 11th October 2002, he was patrolling in the jurisdiction of ITI police chowky.In the evening, he had gone to Vijapur Naka Police Station.He states that, on 11 th October 2002, after interval of every two hours, he was going to Vijapur Naka Pollice Station.He states that, on 11 th October, 2002 besides him, no other Police Officer was present at the Police Station.He states that, on 11 th October, 2002, he left Vijapur Naka Police Station at 10.30 P.M. He states that, he did not feel it necessary to visit the Police Station after recording the complaint of Sunil Yadav.He states that, on the very same day, again at 12.00 midnight, he had visited Vijapur Naka Police Station alongwith PC Rathod.At that time, no Police Officer was present at Vijapur Naka Police Station.However, he was told by 49/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsP.S.O, that after his departure, some Police Officers had visited the Police Station and they had also left the Police Station.He was told by P.S.O. that P.I. Huddedar and P.I. Joshi had visited Vijapur Naka Police Station after his departure at 10.30 P.M. He further states that, he did not make inquiry of the C.R. recorded on the complaint of Sunil Yadav.He states that, he learnt when he went to Police Station at midnight that, P.I. Joshi and P.I. Huddedar were patrolling in the jurisdiction of Police Station between 10.30 P.M. to 00.15 A.M. It will be relevant to refer to the following part of his cross-examination :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::I did not raise any obstruction while the complainant was narrating the incident.It is not happen that some portion narrated by complainant was left out or omitted by me from his complaint.It is not happened because I was in hurry some portion narrated by complainant remain to be recorded in his complaint.It is not happen while recording complaint I had to leave the police station and again after arrival the work of recording complaint was commenced."The complainant had not stated before me that accused No.1 M.D. Shaikh to other accused persons, "Maro, Kato, Todo Saloko".The complainant had not stated before me name of accused Mashak Pathan.It is true the complainant had not stated before me that Umar Shaikh thrusted knife in abdomen of Chandrakant Mhetre.It is true the complainant had not stated before me that Chandrakant 50/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals Mhetre came by Bajaj Boxer motor cycle from eastern side.It is true complainant had not stated before me in which directions those said persons had gone.It is true complainant had not stated before me that he himself along with Iresh Kaki, Mahadu Jadhav, Kashinath Chavan, Ravi Kalyankar followed Chandrakant Mhetre.It is true the complainant had not stated before me that amongst those four persons accused M.D. Shaikh was with those persons.It is true complainant had not stated before me that other persons were assaulting Chandrakant Mhetre by swords."::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::51/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsOn 13th October 2002, he drew spot panchanama of the place of incident in the presence of two panchas.He states that, on 13 th October 2002, he recorded statement of four witness, including P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura.He further states that, on 15th October 2002, he recorded statement of police constable Rajaram Sriman.On 23rd October 2002, he recorded statement of injured witness Ambaji Gandi (P.W. 17).32] In his cross-examination, P.W.22 states that, he had taken over charge of actual investigation on 11th October, 2002 at around 10.30 P.M. He further states that, he was not present at the Police Station while complaint of Sunil Yadav was being registered.He further admits that, accused in connection with C.R. of Sadar Bazar Police Station and Salgar Vasti Police Station were also kept in the lock-up of Vijapur Naka Police Station.He further admits that, during night between 52/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals11th October 2002 and 12th October 2002, accused M.D. Shaikh was in the lock-up of Vijapur Naka Police Station.A suggestion was given to this witness that on 11th October 2002, at around 3.30P.M., P.I. Kharbas of Sadar Bazar Police Station, detained accused No.1 M.D. Shaikh in the lock-up of Vijapur Naka Police Station.It will be relevant to refer to following part of his cross-examination from para 7 :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::On 23.10.2002 Ambaji Gandi had come to police station.On 11.10.2002 itself I learnt that one witness by name Ambaji Gandi is injured while making investigation.At the same time I had also learnt that Ambaji Gandi is lying in Civil Hospital for serious head injury and other injuries.It is true inspite of serious head injury to Ambaji Gandi, I had not immediately visited to Civil Hospital to record his statement.I say for about 12 days Ambaji Gandi was admitted in Civil Hospital.It is true during this period of 12 days I had not gone to see Ambaji Gandi at civil hospital.The dying declaration was not recorded by anyone.On 12.10.2002 in the morning I had given oral direction to Detection Branch of my police station to inform Ambaji Gandi attend the police station when he discharge from the hospital or to inform his physical health.I was in touch with detection branch of my police station about getting information of the health of Ambaji Gandi.By passage of time there were improvements in the health of Ambaji Gandi while he was admitted in Civil Hospital.It is 53/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals true that it was important factor getting information about said Ambaji Gandi in connection of investigation of the case.I have not recorded statement of any of police staff attached to Detection Branch in connection of health of Ambaji Gandi.There are no entries made in case diary about deputing detection branch branch to civil hospital for getting information about health of Ambaji Gandi............."::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::He admits in his evidence that, he had not seized the motorcycle which was in burnt condition under panchanama because he did not feel it necessary to seize the same under panchanama.He further states that, the said motorcycle was handed over to Bhimashankar Mhetre who was related to the deceased.He has further stated that, he had not seized the broken pieces of amplifier and tape-recorder under panchanama.He admits that, in serious cases, place of incident is required to be visited immediately.He states that, he felt it necessary to handover broken pieces of Lion and Goddess to responsible persons for emersion.He states that, broken pieces of Goddess and Lion were 54/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealshanded over to Bhimashankar Mhetre.He states that, he does not remember whether such a record came to be maintained or not.He further states in his deposition that, his writer Head Constable Solankar had written statement of witnesses.He states that, on 11 th October 2002, the statement of five witnesses were recorded one by one.He further states that, he cannot tell as to how those witnesses came to Police Station, whether together or separately.He states that, witness Iresh Kaki came to Police Station at 10.35 P.M. Since in his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that on 11 th October, 2002 he came to know about the names of accused in this case and since he had not personally arrested any of the accused persons, the learned defence counsel requested the court to record the question put to the witness as it is, as also the answer given by the witness.On permission being granted by the Court, the witness has stated in his cross-examination thus :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::"Question - Whether there was any difficulty to arrest the accused persons whose names were transpired to you?Answer - There was no any difficulty for arrest the accused persons."In para 14 of his evidence, this witness ( P.W. 22) has stated thus : 55/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::The name of accused M.D. Shaikh transpired to me on 11.10.2002 at about 10.35 P.M. I have not arrested the accused M.D. Shaikh till 23.10.2002."In his evidence, various omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 6 - Sunil, P.W. 12 - Jagannath, P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna and P.W. 14 - Iresh have been proved.It will also be relevant to refer to para 18 of his cross-examination, which reads thus :I have mentioned the dates in the caption of statements of witnesses recorded by me namely Iresh Kaki, Ganesh Boma and Mahadeo Jadhav.It is true I have put the date below my signature on statements of these three witnesses.There is no any special reason for putting date below my signature on statements of these witnesses.He further states that, on 13th November 2002, accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh got transferred from another C.R. and accordingly he was shown as arrested in the present C.R. at around 5.20 P.M. 34] From the bird's eye view perspective, the picture that emerges is 59/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsas under:-::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::They came on the dais, broke the idol of Goddess and Lion and ransacked the material and the dais.When the group was doing this, deceased Chandrakant Mhetre was coming on motorcycle.Hearing the sound of motorcycle, the group thought that, policeman had arrived and thereafter started running from the said spot.[B] In the second part, after arrival of deceased 60/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals Chandrakant Mhetre, he started chasing the said group of 10-12 persons and P.W. 6 - Sunil Jadhav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhavand P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki also started following him.At that time, a group of four persons, including accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh came from opposite side.They joined the group of earlier persons.Accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh provoked the group to assault the deceased.61/94::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::He, alongwith P.W. 11 - Mahadev 62/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsJadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki were sitting on the stage.At around 4.30 P.M, 10-12 persons came there and started giving slogans.They broke the idol of Goddess and Lion, ransacked the other material and took out weapons.When group of 10-12 persons was going, four persons came from opposite direction and they started advancing together against the persons led by Chandrakant Mhetre.Accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh provoked the persons from his group.Accused No. 3 - Imtiyaz and Rehman (Juvenile) assaulted the deceased Chandrakant.He fell down on the ground.Thereafter, 15-16 persons advanced towards platform.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::There were also blood stains on his banian.Hence, police also seized the same.After the incident was over, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav went home.Though, according to this witness, he ought to have intimated police immediately about occurrence of the incident, he had not done so.64/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals P.W. 11- Mahadev Jadhav38] The version given by this witness is almost identical with the version given by P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav till the time Chandrakant Mhetre fell down.However, according to this witness, at the time of assault on Chandrakant Mhetre, P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi was also present and after seeing that Chandrakant Mhetre was assaulted, he started running towards his house.He was also accosted by aforesaid persons i.e. accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh and others.He was assaulted by accused No.5. - Mashak Pathan and accused No. 3 - Imtiyaz.According to him, after leaving Ambaji Gandi on that spot, all the aforesaid persons advanced towards the stage.Thereafter, similar version has been given by him that, the group started going towards pandal, they set the motorcycle on fire and thereafter they ran away.After those persons ran away, jeep of Chandrakant Mhetre arrived.Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi were kept in the jeep and they were removed to civil hospital.This witness states that, though he had lifted Chandrakant Mhetre and brought him near pandal, there were no blood-stains on his clothes, though there was blood on his hands.According to this witness, though he had seen those persons with swords, there was no fear in his mind.He further states that, 65/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsnobody rushed at him to assault, so also those 10-12 persons did not rush at other persons who were present surrounding pandal.According to him, though there were about 30 persons from Vishnu Nagar, no one was assaulted.According to him, though the incident lasted for 15 to 20 minutes, he did not inform the police.According to this witness, when Chandrakant Mhetre was lying near Murtuz Fabrication, he was alive and that, though he felt it necessary to rescue Chandrakant Mhetre, he had 66/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealschosen to follow the assailants who were proceeding towards pandal.He further admits that, though the assailants were armed with deadly weapons, he did not advise Chandrakant Mhetre not to follow the assailants.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::His statement was recorded by police.He states that, after lapse of one month, as per directions of police, he himself, Sunil Yadav and Ramkrushna Sura handed over their shirts to police.He states that, when he went to Police Station, neither he saw P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav nor P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura.P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti40] The version given by this witness with regard to first part, is almost similar to that of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav.This witness also 67/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsdeposed regarding Chandrakant Mhetre following the group of 10-12 persons alongwith P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and others.After setting the motorcycle on fire, those persons ran away.According to him, after lapse of some time, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav arrived there and told him that, Chandrakant Mhetre has been assaulted near Murtuz Steel Fabrication.Hence, he alongwith P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav, P.W. 13::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::This witness, alongwith others, took Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi to civil hospital.68/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsOn the way, they saw police vehicle at Venu Gopal Nagar.Thereafter, jeep was taken to civil hospital.After some time, he learnt that Chandrakant Mhetre was no more.On the same day, he went to Vijapur Naka Police Station at around 11.15 P.M. His statement was recorded by police.He further states that, on 13 th October, 2002 he was out of station.He further states that, kerosene was not poured on the motorcycle prior to it being set on fire.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::This witness has also given admissions similar to one given by P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti with regard to there being a police chowky in the hospital and this witness not going there and not lodging the police complaint.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::He has specifically denied that 72/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealssince he was in hurry, some portion narrated by the complainant remained to be recorded in the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::On 23 rd October, 2002, he had recorded statement of injured Ambaji Gandi.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:09 :::At around 5.45 P.M., this witness P.W.23 and his staff members were preset at Venu Gopal Nagar.One jeep came from Vishnu Nagar side and halted near them.A person by name Bhimashankar Mhetre got down and reported to them that, in Vishnu Nagar, some Muslim persons had assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre and the said Chandrakant Mhetre was being carried by them to the hospital.He requested that, one police constable be deputed alongwith them to escort them.Therefore, he went near the said jeep, saw the injured person Chandrakant Mhetre alongwith 3-4 other persons.He deputed PC Sriman to go alongwith those persons to civil hospital.He also immediately intimated PSI Shinde through Thane Amaldar on wireless to take necessary legal action about the injured persons who had been taken to civil hospital.He deputed two of his police 75/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsstaff on duty at that spot and gave intimation to Thane Amaldar of control room for providing Reserve Police Force.On 11th October, 2002, at around 10.30 P.M., he had contacted Thane Amaldar on phone.He therefore gave direction to Thane Amaldar to assign C.R. No.209 of 2002 to P.I. Joshi for the purpose of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::46] As discussed hereinabove, various accused were arrested by P.W. 23 during investigation.On 9th November, 2002, he had seized clothes of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura.It could be seen from his evidence that, on 13 th November, 2002, accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh got transferred from another crime and was shown to be arrested in the present crime at 5.20 P.M. He admits in his cross-examination that, on 11th October 2002, he intimated Police Station about Chandrakant Mhetre at around 5.45 P.M. However, there is no entry made in station diary about this intimation given.He further 76/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsadmits that, he had visited the spot at around 6.15 P.M.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::He states that, PSI Shinde had recorded complaint of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav and the said complaint was forwarded to him alongiwth report for registering the crime.Accordingly C.R. No.209/2002 came to be registered by him.After registering the crime, the case was taken over by P.I. Joshi for the purpose of investigation.He states that, on the basis of FIR, the report which was to be sent to the Court was prepared.However, it was not tallied and read by him since he was in hurry, as there was riot.He admits in his cross-examination that, he does not know as to when FIR of C.R. No.209 of 2002 was written and when it was completed.48] The principles of appreciation of evidence in a riot case have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 77/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsMasalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and in para 14 Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus :-::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead 1 AIR 1965 SC 202 78/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals to failure of justice.No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated.Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::50] As per evidence of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, Chandrakant Mhetre arrived and started following the persons who had ransacked idol etc and who was followed by P.W. 6 - Sunil Jadhav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki.After they went ahead, another group of four persons joined them and assaulted Chandrakant Mhetre, who fell down on the spot.According to him, after third phase was over and when they were about to keep the body of deceased Chandrakant Mhetre in the Trax, at that time, P.W. 7 - Ambaji Gandi came there in injured condition and informed them that, he was assaulted by the same persons.However, according to P.W.11 - 79/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsMahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, at the time of assault on Chandrakant Mhetre, Ambaji Gandi was also present and after seeing that Chandrakant Mhetre was being assaulted, he ran towards his house and at that time he was assaulted by Accused No. 5 - Mashak Pathan and accused No. 3 - Imityaz.Thus, as per the version of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav - the first informant, the assault on Chandrakant Mhetre and Ambaji Gandi has not taken place at the same time.According to P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, immediately after Chandrakant Mhetre was assaulted, P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi was also assaulted.As such, if evidence of these three witness is read together, it would reveal that P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav has only witnessed the assault on deceased Chandrakant Mehtre and P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki has witnessed the assault on Chandrakant Mhetre as well as on Ambaji Gandi, though according to all of them, they were together.51] As per evidence of P.W. 6 - Sunil Jadhav, in the third phase when the assaulting party came on the spot, they poured kerosene on the motorcycle of the deceased Chandrakant Mhetre and set it on fire by a matchstick and thereafter they ran away.However, 80/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsaccording to P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, they removed petrol pipe of motorcycle of Chandrakant Mhetre and set the motorcycle on fire.As a matter of fact, P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti categorically states in his cross-examination that kerosene was not poured on the motorcycle prior to it being set on fire.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::52] As per the version of P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki slogans "Todo Fodo Kato Sale Ko Mat Chhodo" were given by accused No. 1 - M.D. Shaikh in the second phase of the incident when the assaulters in the first phase, who were running were joined by four persons led by accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh.It is the version of these witnesses that, by using the said words, accused No.1 - M.D. Shaikh provoked the assailants to assault the deceased.However, according to P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, accused No. 1 - M.D. Shaikh was using these words "Todo Fodo Kato Sale Ko Mat Chhodo" after the second phase was over and the said accused were setting the motorcycle on fire is the third phase.According to P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki, after Chandrakant Mhetre fell down and 81/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsassaulters were returning to pandal, they followed them and were on the spot and they had witnessed the incident regarding setting the motorcycle on fire.However, according to P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav arrived there, after lapse of sometime and told them that, Chandrakant Mhetre had been assaulted.53] According to P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, he had gone to Police Station at around 8.00 P.M. to lodge oral report and he has put his signature on the FIR between 11.00 P.M. to 11.30 P.M and as such, was in Police Station till that time.However, according to P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav, when he went to Police Station at around 10.45 P.M., P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav was not there.Even according to P.W.12 - Jagannath Shivshetti, he went to Police Station at around 11.15 P.M. and in the Police Station, he did not find P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav or P.W.13 - Ramkrushna Sura.However, according to P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, he was very much there in the Police Station at around 10.00 or 11.00 P.M. It is to be noted that according to P.W. 12::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::- Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramrkushna Sura, both of them were in the hospital at around 10.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M. If that be so, then the assertion of P.W. 12 - Jagannath that, he did not even see 82/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsP.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura in the Police Station, again creates a great doubt with regard to veracity of the prosecution case.Rather, the present case is shrouded with mysterious circumstances, which prosecution has not been in a position to explain.54] Insofar as, various omissions in the evidence of P.W. 6 - Sunil Jadhav are concerned, he has stated that, though he had given all details to the police, while recording his complaint police did not enter details since they were in hurry because of the riot situation.However, according to P.W. 20 - Namdeo Shinde, the complaint of P.W. 6 -Sunil Yadav was recorded, as was narrated by P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav and he had specifically denied that since he was in hurry, some portion narrated by the complainant remained to be recorded in the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::They have stated that, neither they had been to the Police Station on the said day nor police had come to them for recording their statement.On the contrary, P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti emphatically states that on 13th October 2002, he was out of station.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::56] Though according to P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki and, even according to P.W. 23 - P.I. Gajanan Huddedar, I.O., the clothes of the witnesses were seized after a period of one month from the date of registration of FIR, according to P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, he was told by police that, there were blood stains on the banian of Sunil Yadav.He further goes on to say that, banian of Sunil Yadav was lying on the table when he went to Police Station.Not only that, he further states that, police had also seized clothes of Ambaji Gandi in the police station on the same day.Whereas, from the evidence of P.W. 22 - P.I. Mahesh Joshi, statement of Ambaji Gandi was recorded on 23rd October 2002 and clothes were seized on the same day.57] According to P.W. 20 - Namdeo Shinde, he was in Police 84/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsStation till 10.30 P.M. At 12.00 midnight, he had visited the Police Station alongwith PC Rathod and, at that time, no Police Officer was present at Vijapur Naka Police Station.No doubt, that P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki have also stated that, their statement came to be recorded on 11th October, 2002 at around 11.00 P.M. If P.W. 20 - Namdeo Shinde was not in Police Station when the said witnesses went to Police Station then the question would be where and how statements of these witnesses came to be recorded.58] It could thus be seen that there are N-number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case.If the evidence of one witness on one aspect is to be believed then evidence of other witness on the same aspect will have to be disbelieved.The very presence of witnesses in the Police Station between 10.00 P.M. to 12.00 midnight 85/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsitself is doubtful on many aspects.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::59] It is further to be noted that, very conduct of the witnesses itself creates a great doubt as to whether they were really present on the spot or not.P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav, P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura, all accompanied the deceased Chandrakant but none of them made any attempt to save him.Not only that, though according to them, when after assaulting him, he was alive and assaulting party started running towards pandal, they chose to follow the assaulting party rather than making an attempt to immediately save Chandrakant Mhetre.P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav has gone to the extent of saying that, though he had seen those persons with swords, there was no fear in his mind.He further goes on to state that nobody rushed at him to assault, so also those persons did not rush at other persons who were present alongwith him.If the assaulting party of 15-20 persons was armed with deadly weapons and according to the prosecution, the only motive was communal riot then it is surprising that, they chose to assault only one person and not others who were accompanying him and in the near vicinity.It is further to be noted that, the prosecution has not brought anything on 86/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsrecord that common intention of the assaulting party was only to attack the deceased Chandrakant Mhetre for any special reason and not any other person belonging to Hindu community.P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav has stated that, he did not apprehend danger to his life and he did not run away from the spot to save himself.The conduct of witnesses also needs to be taken into consideration.No doubt, it is a settled principle of law that, how a person would respondent to a situation may differ from person to person.However, after the deceased Chandrakant was kept in vehicle at around 5.00 P.M and after the vehicle went to hospital, neither P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav nor P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav nor P.W. 14 - Iresh Kaki found it necessary either to go to hospital or make inquiries about condition of deceased Chandrakant Mhetre.Not only that, 87/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsfrom 5 O'clock till these witnesses came to know about death of the deceased, none of them found it necessary to inform police about such brutal attack.P.W. 6 - Sunil Yadav finds it appropriate to go to Police Station only at 8.00 P.M. However, FIR is registered at 10.30 P.M. The other two witnesses viz. P.W. 11 - Mahadev Jadhav and P.W. 13 Ramrkrushna Sura also find it appropriate to go to Police Station between 10.00 P.M. and 11.00 P.M.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::60] Though P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramrkrushna Sura were in the hospital and they came to know about deceased being dead within 10-12 minutes of he being admitted still they did not find it necessary to do anything about it till 11.00 P.M. Though there was police chowky available in the hospital, they did not find it necessary to inform about the incident to the person in the police chowky.Not only that, they admit that on account of riot situation, the police personnel were frequently visiting the hospital.However, neither both of them nor Bhimashankar Mhetre who was also present at the hospital found it necessary to inform the police.Not only this, though there was public telephone available in the hospital so also the telephone was available in the police chowky, none 88/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsof them found it necessary to inform the police about the incident.61] P.W. 23 - P.I. Gajanan Huddedar comes to know about the incident at 5.45 P.M. He gives police escort in the nature of police constable Sriman to accompany them to the hospital.According to him, he immediately intimated PSI Shinde through Thane Amaldar to take necessary legal action.However, there is no entry in the station diary in that regard.He, thereafter, goes on the spot, visits pandal.However, there is no entry even with regard to that.He therefore gave directions to Thane Amaldar to assign C.R. 209 of 2002 to PI Joshi.Even with regard to that, there is no entry in the station diary.If he has intimated to the Police Station about the incident at around 5.45 P.M. then a million dollar question is, what is that intimation which was given by him to the Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::62] As discussed hereinabove, there are various discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 22 - P.I. Mahesh Joshi with regard to recording of statements of the witnesses.No doubt that, merely because there are 89/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealslacunae in the prosecution case, that itself cannot be a ground to totally turn down the prosecution case, if it otherwise appears to be truthful.If his name was disclosed by other eye witnesses in the night, he should have been immediately arrested.His presence in the lock up is admitted by the I.O. Then the only inference can be drawn is that the statements of eye witnesses were recorded on 11th October, 2002 and they were subsequently manipulated / fabricated.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::63] In the light of aforesaid, there appears to be a great 90/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealssubstance in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1 that accused No.1 has been falsely implicated since he has published many public articles, bringing out various malpractices of the Police Officers.Perusal of evidence of P.W. 6 and specifically his cross-examination, would reveal that he has admitted that accused No.1 was a prominent figure and he could notice him even in a mob of 1000 persons.According to P.I. Joshi, he recorded statement of eye witnesses on 11 th October, 2002 itself.If that be so, there was no reason as to why M.B. Shaikh was not arrested on 11th October, 2002 in the present crime.As such, there is a great doubt as to whether statements were, in fact, recorded immediately or not or as to whether a record has been subsequently manipulated so as to implicate the accused persons.If that be so, then the omission to name him in the FIR, creates a great doubt as to whether he was really present or not.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::91/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals64] Insofar as oral dying declarations given to P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura are concerned, we do not find that conviction could be based on such oral dying declarations.65] The perusal of medical evidence of P.W. 4 - Dr. Shashikant Pakale, would reveal that when deceased was brought to the hospital, his condition was poor.He was in shock.His pulse was 50 per minute, low volume.His B.P. was 50 MM Hg that is systolic.Perusal of para 9 of his evidence would reveal that, in view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the patient can become unconscious immediately.Apart from that, the evidence of two witnesses viz P.W. 12 - Jagannath Shivshetti and P.W. 13 - Ramkrushna Sura would reveal that, oral dying declarations were not made to them but to cousin of the deceased viz. Bhimashankar Mhetre.The statement of Bhimashankar Mhetre has been recorded.However, for the best reasons known to the prosecution, he has not been examined.Not only that, statement of police constable Sriman has also been recorded.However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he also has not been examined.92/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appeals66] The nature of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency would be clear from the manner in which the statement of the injured witness P.W. 17 - Ambaji Gandi has been recorded.Though he was hospitalized on 11th October 2002, and though he was an important injured eye witness, Investigating Officer did not find it necessary to record his statement till 23rd October, 2002 when he came to Police Station after his discharge.Defence taken by the appellants that, the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the IO with the assistance of Bhimashankar Mhetre by getting the statements of witnesses belonging to a particular political party, cannot be said to be impossible.The non-examination of prime witness Bhimashankar Mhetre, acts as corroboration to their defence.A great doubt with regard to the truthfulness of the prosecution case exists and as such, we are of the considered view that the 93/94 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 ::: 201-cri.appeal-908-204 with connected criminal appealsAppellants/Accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and will have to be acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::68] In the result we pass the following order :-O R D E R(i) Appeals are allowed.(ii) The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge is quashed and set aside.(iii) Appellants are acquitted of the charges charged with.(iv) Appellants/original Accused Nos.1, 2, 5Criminal Applications taken out in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2004 do not survive and they are disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:00:10 :::
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,428,738 |
This petition has been filed to accept the compromise arrived at by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein and quash the FIR in Cr.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On the complaint lodged by J.R.Pradhan, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.65/2016 on 04.04.2016 for offences u/s 406, 420, 506(i) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 against Poopandian, challenging which this quash application has been filed for quashing the FIR, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.M.Karunanidhi, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - 7th Team was present.Poopandian and J.R.Pradhan were also present and they have filed a joint affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:O.P.No.8006 of 2016 and the matter was referred to mediation but the mediation was not successful before the mediation centre and the matter has been referred back to court.f. We submit that after the failure of mediation before the mediation centre we got into further interaction with each other and have come to realise that it is only a matter of money that cannot be resolved by the criminal complaints preferred against each other and the only way to find a solution is by settling the issues among ourselves.We therefore discussed the matters pending between us and decided to settle the issues peacefully amongst ourselves and have entered into a comprehensive separate agreement to solve all the disputes. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,594,323 |
JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the contemners Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate and Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate and the learned Government Advocate.After recording the examination-in-chief of P.W. 12, contemner Nakshetra Pal Singh, Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the accused Sushil and Kulvendra started cross-examining, the witness, who gave the reply.The Presiding Officer asked the contemner Nakshetra Pal Singh to clarify from P.W. 12 whether he was understanding the meaning of the word Vayan, then the contemner Nakshetra Pal Sigh, Advocate and his associate contemner Vijai Pal Singh, Advocate extended the threats to P.W. 12 Brijesh Kumar in the court and started shouting by saying that the presiding Officer was recording a distorted statement of the witness and made allegation against the Presiding Officer that he was having" interest in the said case.Then the Presiding Officer asked the contemners that if they do not want to do this case in his court, the same may be transferred to some other court.Thereafter both the contemners left the court without cross-examining the witness P.W. 12 and due to shouting and extending threat to P.W. 12., the litigants, police personnel, witnesses and other persons attracted to the court room, in their presence also P.W. 12 was given a threat and they caused obstacle in the functioning of the court proceedings as well as made allegations against the Presiding Officer about his integrity and dutifulness, consequently the authority of the court was lowered.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,594,358 |
The appellant who was ashed clerk at Sainthia Railway Station is alleged to havecommitted criminal breach of trust with respect to 8 bags ofsuji which had been booked by rail at Murarai by one BhikamChand Pipria, the consignee being the firm of LalchandPhusraj of Sainthia.He was alleged to have done this inconspiracy with Ibrahim and Nepal Chandra Das.We are notconcerned with these two persons469and so we can leave them out of account.D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.P. K. Chakravarti and P. K. Bose, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMudholkar, J. The only point which has been urged in thisappeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court atCalcutta is whether the trial and conviction of theappellant for an offence under s. 409, Indian Penal Codewere barred by the provisions of s. 403 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).The facts which are not in dispute are these:The appellant was tried for an offence under s. 409, I.P.C.by Mr. T. Bhattacharjee, Judge, Birbhum Special Court andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.His conviction was maintained in appeal by the High Courtbut the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment fortwo years.One of the points urged before the High Courtwas that upon the same facts and with respect to the sameoffence the appellant was tried earlier by Mr. N. C.Ganguly, Judge, Birbhum Special Court and acquitted thereof.He could, therefore, not have been tried over again inrespect of that offence and consequently his conviction andsentence are illegal.What actually happened was this.The offence wasinvestigated into and a charge sheet was submitted againstthe appellant under s. 409, I.P.C. and two other persons bythe Officer-in-charge, Government Railway Police, Asansol.Apparently he filed the charge sheet himself in the court ofJudge, Birbbum Special Court.On the date of hearing,however, counsel for prosecution made a statement to thefollowing effect:" Thereupon the Magistrate recorded an order in the following terms:Accused acquitted for reasons to be recorded separately."After referring to the statement of counsel for the prosecution and the order made on it the Magistrate continued:Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,440,474 |
As per prosecution story, on 22.03.2009, the appellant in person gave information in the Police Station Kotwali, Mandsaur that he was having apprehension that his wife Shanti Bai was having some illicit relations with other person and yesterday there was a hot talk between them due to her illicit relationship , he gave a blow from wooden object on her head due to which she became unconscious.He dragged and put her inside the box, strangulated by cloth and closed the box.In the evening his son Vinod enquires about her mother.(Delivered on 07/02/2019) Per Vivek Rusia, J:The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 373 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgement dated 25.09.2009, passed in Sessions Trial No.35/2009, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.300/- and in default in depositing the fine additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and give information of the said incident.On the basis of the said information the police registered a case under Section 302 of IPC against him and recovered the dead body of Shanti Bai and sent it to the postmortem .After completing usual investigation challan was filed under Section 302 of IPC.The accused in his statement under Section 313 of IPC pleaded not guilty but admitted that he killed his wife and kept her dead body in a box.In defence, the appellant did not examine any witness.After appreciating the evidence came on record and on confession made by the appellant, learned Additional District Judge has convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 with life imprisonment, hence, the present appeal before this Court.We have heard Shri Toufiq Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant & Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Toufiq Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.It was at the most the case of Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC as the appellant under the sudden provocation and doubt over the character of his wife gave a single blow on her head and due to which she died.There is no evidence to the effect that she died due to strangulation in the neck.The appellant has already undergone 10 years jail sentence, therefore, it is a fit case for converting Section 302 of IPC to Section 304, Part 2 of IPC and reduction of sentence upto 10 years with fine.Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the appellant himself has admitted his sin that he killed his wife and kept the dead body inside a box.There is no evidence to the effect that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation.He killed his wife because he was having doubt over her character , therefore, learned Court has rightly convicted him under Section 302 of IPC.That according to PW1 who is brother of the appellant, the appellant used to create doubt over the character of the deceased and he used to assault her.PW2 i.e. the son of the appellant viz Vinod has also stated that his father and mother used to quarrel regularly and he used to intervene between their dispute.Except these two witnesses, prosecution examined two witnesses to prove seizure of articles.As per the doctor's opinion, Shanti Bai died due to head injury and there is no challenge to the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of death of the accused, therefore, it is not necessary for us to reconsider the same again.Hence the findings in regards to the cause of death are affirms .It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the appellant used to doubt over the character of his wife and that was the main cause of dispute between them.In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, he has specifically deposed that on the date of incident when he came to the house he saw his wife with another man and after seeing him, that man ran away.Thereafter, he killed his wife.We order accordingly."The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Arjun and Anr.In the facts and circumstances noted above, there appears merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Exception 1 or Exception 4 in Section 300 of the IPC the case made out against the appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It would be natural for the family members of juvenile offender Balu on hearing his cries, to rush for his help and when injury on the appellant has also been proved there is sufficient material to infer the reasonable possibility of a grave and sudden provocation.The assault on the deceased, in absence of intention to cause death could be on account of sudden fight without pre-meditation, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel.We therefore feel persuaded to and do set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and substitute the same with conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent."In Sikandar Ali Vs.State of Maharashtra, AIR 2017 SC 2614, the Court altered the conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 part-2 IPC in the following circum- stances:We have no doubt about the complicity of all the accused in the homicide of Sarfraj.A-1 attacked the deceased with the knife and caused injury on his neck which resulted in his death.The other accused assisted him in committing the crime by holding the hands of the deceased.During the course of their business activity the accused reached the dhaba where the deceased was present.An altercation took place during the discussion they were having behind the dhaba.That led to a sudden fight during which A-1 attacked the deceased with a knife.From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a preexisting property dispute between the two families.The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behaviour.It was a free fight between the two family members.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,441,297 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent/complainant.http://www.judis.nic.in 22.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that 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.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.http://www.judis.nic.in 36.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.14 of 2019 within a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3144 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1651 of 2020
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,447,808 |
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.1. Leave granted.Healso gained further promotions to the cadres of Manager-B Grade andthereafter, Manager-A Grade with effect from 24.11.1977 and 18.12.1982respectively.During 1981-1982, when the appellant was posted as Manager at theSector 19, Chandigarh Branch of the PNB, he was accused of having enteredinto a conspiracy with R.L. Vaid, the then Regional Manager of the PNB,Chandigarh, and Dr. A.K. Sinha, IAS, the then Secretary, Department of Townand Country Planning, Haryana and thereby, of fraudulently havingsanctioned a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- to Mrs. Rama Sinha (wife of Dr. A.K.Sinha, aforementioned).The said loan was granted to Mrs.Rama Sinha, forconstruction of a building on a plot in Sector 6, Panchkula.The saidbuilding, after its construction, was leased to the PNB, at an allegedlyexorbitant rent of Rs.4,985/- per month.The loan amount, was to beadjusted out of the rent account.The PNB was allegedly, not in the needof the said building, because it was already housed in a building in Sector17, Chandigarh, at a nominal rent of Rs.1,650/- per month.This factual position, it was alleged, wassufficient to infer, that the PNB was not in need of the building taken onrent from Mrs.Rama Sinha.Based on the aforesaid factual position, it wasfelt, that the action of the conspirators caused a pecuniary loss ofRs.2,70,000/- to the PNB.It was also sought to be assumed, that theaforesaid loan and lease were favours extended to Dr. A.K. Sinha, IAS,through his wife Mrs. Rama Sinha.The trial in the above matter was conducted by the Special Judge, CBICourt, Chandigarh.On the conclusion of the trial, the Special Judge, CBICourt, Chandigarh arrived at the conclusion, that the prosecution hadfailed to produce any evidence on the issue of criminal conspiracy.Thetrial Court accordingly, acquitted all the three accused of the chargesframed against them on 31.10.2009, by holding, that the prosecution hadfailed to establish the charges beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.Based on his aforesaid acquittal, the appellant addressed aletter dated 26.11.2009 to the Executive Director of the PNB seekingrelease of his gratuity, encashment of privileged leave balance andcommutation of permissible portion of pension.Additionally, he claimedinterest, from the date the aforesaid retiral benefits became due to him,till the actual payment thereof.It will also be relevant to mention, thatby this time, the appellant was over 73 years old.In its reply dated5.2.2010, the PNB informed the appellant, that it had released leaveencashment of Rs.1,28,716.24 on that day itself i.e., on 5.2.2010 itself.The appellant was also informed through the aforesaid communication, that aduly sanctioned gratuity proposal had been sent to the Provident Fund andPension Department of the PNB, for disbursement of gratuity.The appellant’s request for interest on the aforesaid delayedpayments, was responded to by the PNB through a letter dated 12.3.2010.The appellant was informed, that he was entitled to interest on account ofwithholding of his retiral benefits, only with effect from the date ofculmination of the proceedings pending against him.Having found theappellant entitled to interest with effect from 31.10.2009 i.e., when theSpecial Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh acquitted him, the PNB released a sumof Rs.1,881/- as interest towards delayed payment of leave encashment, andanother sum of Rs.3,336/- as interest on account of having withheld hisgratuity.The aforesaid interest, the appellant was informed, had beencalculated at the rate of 5.5%.Dissatisfied with the action of the PNB, in not paying interest tohim from the date the aforesaid retiral benefits became due (on hisretirement on 31.10.1996), till their eventual release (in February, 2010),the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition no. 6469 of 2010 before the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, theHigh Court).The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be allowed on 4.5.2011.While allowing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, the High Courtdirected the PNB to pay the appellant, interest at the rate of 8% from thedate retiral benefits had became due to the appellant, till the actualpayment thereof to him.The DivisionBench of the High Court arrived at the conclusion, that the appellant wasnot entitled to any interest on delayed payment of Gratuity.The award ofinterest to the appellant for withholding the other retiral benefits was,however, not interfered with.The decision (dated 29.11.2011) rendered bythe Division Bench of the High Court, has been assailed by the appellant,through the instant appeal.The reasons which prompted the Division Bench of the High Court todeny interest on the withheld amount of gratuity to the appellant, areascertainable from the paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which is beingextracted hereunder:-(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,--(a) on his superannuation, or(5) For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under sub-section (4), the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely :-(a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath;(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;The PNB is directed, to pay the aforesaid interest to the appellant,within one month of the appellant’s furnishing to the PNB a certified copyof the instant order.The appellant shall also be entitled to costsquantified at Rs.50,000/-, for having had to incur expenses before the WritCourt, before the Division Bench, and finally before this Court.Theaforesaid costs shall also be disbursed to the appellant within the timeindicated hereinabove.Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.(Jagdish Singh Khehar)New Delhi;
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,449,296 |
(a) The deceased in this case was one Nallaiyan.He was working as a load man in the shop of one Rajalingam Chettiar at Namakkal.P.W.1 was working in a neighbouring shop.The accused also hails from Namakkal.The accused was also a poor man doing repairing of vessels.Some time before 21.02.2011, the daughter of the accused was kidnapped by the son of the deceased.The accused went in search of his daughter to various places, but he could not find her anywhere.On 21.02.2011 around 3.00 p.m, the deceased was sitting near Sumangali Covering Shop in the lane at Namakkal.P.W.1 walked by his side.The accused who was passing through that way, found the deceased sitting there.On nearing the deceased, the accused asked him as to where his son had kidnapped the daughter of the accused.This resulted in a quarrel.Enraged over the same, the accused poured petrol on the deceased, which he was having in a plastic can and set him on fire.The deceased was in flames.The accused ran way from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 and others extinguished the fire.They took him to Government Hospital at Namakkal.(b) The Duty Medical Officer examined the deceased and found 90% of burn injuries.The deceased was then conscious.He told the Medical Officer that a known person poured petrol and set fire near temple.The doctor admitted him as inpatient and then sent intimation to the Magistrate as well as to police.) The Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.20) at Namakkal Police Station, on receiving the said intimation, went to Government Hospital at Namakkal.The deceased was then conscious.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.77/2011 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.He stood charged for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act. By Judgment dated 21.12.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec.302 IPC.The trial Court did not impose separate sentence for the offence under Sec.3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal.He has registered a case under Sec.307 IPC.P.18 is the statement of the deceased and Ex.P.19 is the first information report.He forwarded both the documents to Court, which were received by the Judicial Magistrate.(d) P.W.21, then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses.He recovered a match box, a gunny bag and a half burnt white cloth.On the same day at 7.30 p.m he arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses.While in custody, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the plastic can and plastic paint tin.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the material objects.P.W.21 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the police station he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to Court.The report reveals that there was no trace of petrol or diesel.(e) While the investigation was in progress, at 9.50 p.m, the deceased died in the hospital.Therefore, P.W.21 altered the case into one under Sec.302 IPC.He conducted Inquest on the body of the deceased on the next day between 7.00 a.m and 9.00 a.m and recorded the statement of witnesses.Then he forwarded the body for post mortem.(f) P.W.14 Dr.Tamil Selvi, Senior Surgeon, Government Hospital, Namakkal conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 22.02.2011 at 11.30 a.m. She found 90% burn injuries.P.10 is the Post Mortem Certificate.She opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to extensive burn injuries.(g) P.W.21, thereafter, altered the case, including the offence under Sec.3(1)(x) and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act. Ex.P.23 is the alteration report.P.W.22 examined few more witnesses, collected Community Certificate of the deceased as well as from the accused.(h) It needs to be mentioned that the when the deceased was in the hospital, P.W.17, the then Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital at 6.45 p.m on 21.2.2011 and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.On completing the investigation, P.W.22 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined and 25 documents and 5 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the entire occurrence as eyewitnesses.They have stated that the accused asked the deceased as to where his son had kidnapped the daughter of the accused.This resulted in a quarrel.In that quarrel, according to them, the accused poured petrol on the deceased and set fire.P.Ws 1 and 2 took the deceased to hospital and admitted the deceased.P.W.2 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch.P.W.3 has spoken about the observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.4 has stated that he heard the cry of the deceased from the place of occurrence.He rushed to the place of occurrence and helped P.W.1 to take the deceased into hospital.He turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries of the plastic can and plastic tin. P.W.6 has spoken about the motive viz., the son of the deceased had kidnapped the daughter of the accused.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution.P.WS.8 and 9 have also spoken about the motive.P.Ws.10 and 11 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.P.W.12 the Tahsildar has stated about the Community Certificate issued.According to him, the accused belongs to Backward Community.P.W.13 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the internal organs of the deceased.According to him, neither poison nor alcohol found in the internal organs.P.W.14 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.15 has stated that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.P.W.16 Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Lab, Chennai has stated that he examined the material objects and found that there was no petrol or diesel on the same.P.W.17, the Judicial Magistrate has stated that on receiving the intimation from the hospital on 21.02.2011 at 6.45p.m, she went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and according to her, at that time, the deceased was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.P.W.18 a Constable has stated that he handed over the first information report to the Magistrate on 11.20p.m.P.W.19, a Constable has stated that he handed over the Dead Body to the doctor for post mortem after inquest was over.P.W.20 has stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P.18 in the hospital and on return to police station, he registered a case at 5.00 p.m on the same day. P.Ws.21 and 22 have spoken about the investigation and final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph and that is how, the accused has come up with this appeal.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.They have categorically stated about the fact that the accused came to the place of occurrence and on seeing the deceased, who was sitting in the lane, went near him and asked him as to where the son of the deceased had kidnapped the daughter of the accused.This resulted in a quarrel.They have further stated that in that quarrel, it was the accused who poured petrol and set fire.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that these two witnesses would not have seen the occurrence at all.But we find no force at all in the said argument.A perusal of the entire evidence, more particularly, the cross examination by the defence counsel, would go to show that nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their presence.In our considered view, their evidences fully inspire the confidence of the Court.Immediately, after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to hospital and admitted in the hospital, P.W.23, examined before this Court by way of additional evidence, in exercise of the power of this Court under Sec.391 of Criminal Procedure Code, has stated that at 4.00 p.m., the deceased was brought to the hospital and at that time, he was conscious and he told that a known person poured petrol and set fire.This has been duly entered in the accident Register.This is the earliest dying declaration made by the deceased to an independent authority viz., the doctor.We find no reason to reject the same.After this, the Sub Inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.In that statement, the deceased told that it was the accused, who poured petrol and set fire.Then, again, at 6.45 p.m, the P.W.17, the learned Judicial Magistrate had gone and recorded the dying declaration.According to the learned Judicial Magistrate, the deceased was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.In that judicial dying declaration also, the deceased had told that he was set fire by a Muslim.Admittedly, the accused is a Muslim.These dying declarations would clearly go to prove that it was this accused who set fire to the deceased.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that in the judicial dying declaration, the deceased had not mentioned the name of the accused, whereas, in the statement, recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, the deceased had mentioned about the name of the accused.There is no explanation for this major flaw he contended.In this argument, we find some force, but, on this score, we cannot reject the entire case of the prosecution only because the deceased had not mentioned the name of the accused in the judicial dying declaration.There are two eyewitnesses who have spoken that it was this accused who poured petrol and set fire.Therefore, this argument is also rejected.By these evidences, in our considered view, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who poured petrol and set fire to the deceased, which resulted in his death.Now, having come to the said conclusion, we have to examine as to what was the offence that was committed by the accused by causing the death of the deceased.It could be gathered from the evidence available on record that the accused did not come to the place of occurrence in search of the deceased at all.He was just passing through and carrying petrol in a can.Incidentally, he saw the deceased sitting on the ground.Pws.1 and 2 were also there.On seeing the deceased, the accused went and asked the deceased as to where his son had taken the daughter of the accused, but the deceased did not respond.This resulted in a quarrel.In that quarrel, because of the words and deeds of the deceased, the accused would have got provoked and on account of such provocation, having lost his mental balance, the accused had poured petrol and set fire.Though there is no direct evidence to prove the provocation, from the circumstances of the case, as spoken by witnesses as well as the dying declarations, more particularly, from the fact that the meeting of the accused and the deceased was purely accidental, we are able to presume that the accused would have been provoked and because of that provocation only, he had poured petrol and set fire.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the appellant has been in jail continuously from the date of conviction.He is a poor man and he had no bad antecedents.The occurrence was not premeditated.It was only out of sudden quarrel and out of grave provocation.Having regard to these mitigating and as well as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the accused undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- for 304 Part-I IPC would meet ends of justice.So far as the offence under Sec3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, there is no evidence that the accused had committed any atrocity in terms of Sec.3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.In the result,(i) The appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence under Sec.302 IPC are set aside and instead, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,449,370 |
Subsequently, in another transaction with the present petitioner Devendra Sahu, allegedly received Rs.60,00,000/- from the deceased for selling a plot at Ashoka Garden.But later, the plot was not sold to the deceased.The land was then registered in the name of the petitioner/Devendra Sahu.The deceased mentioned three persons who know about the transaction between them (i) the owner of the plot (ii) Ram Swaroop, resident of Semrah and (iii) name is known to Ram Swaroop, who had helped the Ram Swaroop to purchase a plot.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner at Crime No.137/2016 at Police Station, Misrod, District Bhopal for offence under Section 306 of IPC.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,449,828 |
On 1st May, 2010 at about 9-9.30 A.M., Asha suffered extensive burns at her matrimonial home at B-114A, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.She was taken first to the Bubu Jagivan Ram CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 1 of 27 Memmorial Hospital at about 10.10 A.M on 1st May, 2010 as per the MLC (Ex. PW13/A) and then on the same day at about 11.54 A.M. shifted to the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital.Asha died in the same hospital on 6th May, 2010 at about 5.15 P.M. The Post Mortem report, Ex.PW 6/A, records approximate area of burns as 90% and that smell of kerosene was present.Infected Dermo-epidermal burns were present all over the body except upper half of face, back of upper limbs, front of upper abdomen and both feet.Both palms were burnt.Cause of death was septicaemia consequent upon infected burn injuries.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 1 of 27As per the charge sheet, at that time of occurrence, Laxmi and Jyoti were present with Asha at B-114, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.Sanjay Rathore (PW-2), along with his four children was not present, having taken his ailing children to a doctor.The scaled site plan, marked Exhibit PW-17/A, illustrates that the accommodation consisted of two rooms in front and two rooms on the back side with an open courtyard with bath, WC, kitchen and a store in the middle portion.The burns were suffered in the big room at the back side of the said property, where a plastic bottle with kerosene, match sticks, match box and burnt clothes (pallu of a saree) were found.The charge against Laxmi and Jyoti was that they had poured kerosene oil on Asha and had set her ablaze.Munna (PW-1) has testified that on 1st May,2010 at about 9 A.M. after visiting the urinal, he was returning to his barber shop, when he saw Asha coming out of her house ablaze with fire on her back side and shouting "save me save me" ("bachao bachao").PW-1 had used his hands to extinguish the fire on the back side of Asha's blouse and had torn the blouse but the fire had engulfed her.He ran and had brought a cover from a motorcycle.In the meantime, someone had put a bed-sheet around Asha.PW-1 heard Asha was telling Jyoti "tumne muje jalaya hai" (you have put me on fire).Jyoti had questioned and had asked Asha to take oath and swear by her children.Asha did not take oath.Munna (PW-1) had made a call at No.The appellant-Laxmi, mother-in-law of Asha, was present.Munna voluntarily added that he seen a match box in the hands of Asha, which CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 3 of 27 had fallen and later on taken into custody by the police.Asha was removed to the hospital in the police control room van.Joyti had accompanied Asha.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 3 of 27Munna (PW-1), on a leading question put to him by the public prosecutor, affirmatively reiterated that in his presence, Jyoti had asked Asha to take oath of her children and ascribe that Jyoti had set her on fire and on this Asha had kept mum.Munna (PW-1) was cross examined by the public prosecutor but stuck to his version that Asha had had never stated on oath that she had been burnt by Jyoti and her mother in law (i.e. Laxmi).PW-1 however did accept that he had not told the police that he had seen a match box in Asha's hands, professing that he had forgotten this fact.It was suggested that he had been won over, but Munna (PW-1) strongly refuted the impute.Interestingly, in his short cross examination on behalf of the appellants, PW-1 has deposed that he had not seen Laxmi or Jyoti putting a bed-sheet or save Asha.Voluntarily, adding that he was told by others that Jyoti had wrapped a bed sheet on Asha.Lata (PW-4), the second neighbour has deposed that she was washing clothes at about 9.30 A.M., when she had heard someone shout "fire fire" ("aag aag").She had seen Asha running from her courtyard to the street, with her pallu on fire and some persons were trying to extinguish the fire.She had witnessed this, from her balcony.PW-4 had heard Asha stating that she was put on fire by her mother-in-law and sister-in- law and had identified the two appellants who were present in the court.In her cross-examination, PW-4 somewhat relented and altered her statement accepting that she had not heard correctly.The Public Prosecutor had confronted PW-1 with a portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit PW-1/A) but Munna (PW-1) had insisted and repeatedly affirmed that Asha became quite and was silent.Asha would not vow and troth that Jyoti had set her on fire.PW- 1 even professed that he had seen a match box in the hands of Asha.Munna (PW-1) had earlier participated in the investigation on 1st May, 2010, when the rough/unscaled site plan marked Exhibit PW21/B, was prepared.We do not know, what was narrated and stated by Munna at that time.In this context, Munna (PW-1)'s assertion that Asha had refused to take oath and affirm that Jyoti her Sister-in-law had burnt her is significant and compelling.As per Munna (PW-1), Jyoti had immediately and unbendingly protested and objected to Ashas assertion that she had been set ablaze by her.Jyoti, who was presented, had asked Asha to take oath and swear by her children and state that she (Jyoti) had set her (Asha) on fire.Lata (PW-4) had then proceeded to her canopy and saw that several persons had gathered on the street.Some of them had tried to douse the fire.After some time, Jyoti had CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 6 of 27 draped a blanket around Asha.I got stunned.Jyoti lit the match stick and burnt my saree.The cap of the bottle can be also seen.This part of the house and other belongings lying in the room where Asha had caught fire, had not suffered burns.She was arrested on 23 rd May, 2010 as per the police version on identification by Sanjay Rathore (PW-2).It is also the prosecution case and it is not denied that Jyoti had accompanied Asha to the hospital in the PCR van and had not absconded after the occurrence.The reason given by CW-1 for recording the video, therefore, is obscured.Why did he keep the video and not reveal and hand over to the police is unfathomable.It is possible that CW-1 may have recorded the said video for using the said evidence, but knew the limitations and drawbacks.Having played the aforesaid video a number of times, we have doubts and cannot say with certainty that the answers given by the deceased Asha were not prompted or tutored.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 20 of 27Jitender Kumar (PW-14), the other brother of the deceased Asha has accepted that he used to reside with her sister Asha, his brother-in-law, Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) and their four children at B-114A, Majlis Park, Delhi.He had resided with them for about 5-6 years.He proclaimed that the appellants used to torture and beat Asha though he would urge and request them not to harass Asha.Due to threats, Asha asked PW-14 to shift to another accommodation.PW-14 had made allegations against Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) and referred to a letter marked Exhibit PW-14/A written by Asha in the year 1999 to her CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 21 of 27 parents, complaining against Sanjay Rathore (PW-2).PW-14 has testified that on 27th April, 2010, he had left for Karnataka in connection with a job and on 28th April, 2010, he had received a call from Asha, who had complained that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) and the appellants were torturing and harassing her.Asha had again called him and complained to him on 30th April, 2010 stating taht there was a dispute between her and Sanjay Rathore (PW-2), and the appellants.Next day on 1st May, 2010, he received a SMS from his brother to call him urgently.However, due to lack of balance, he had not made any call.He returned to Delhi on 3rd May, 2010 and had met Asha in LNJP Hospital where Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) was also present.Initially, Asha was hesitant and did not say anything in the presence of Sanjay Rathore (PW-2).Only when Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) had gone outside, Asha had told him that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) had been pressurizing her to change her statement.In his cross-examination, PW-14 tried to explain that he was not in his full senses when the police had recorded his statement and consequently had not stated the full facts.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 21 of 27Mohan Lal (PW-10), father of the deceased Asha implicated Sanjay Rathore and claimed that he would harass Asha for not bringing dowry.He has accepted that the appellant-Laxmi along with Jyoti had sold her house and started living in the rented premises with Sanjay Rathore and Asha.PW-10 claimed that on 1st May, 2010 at about 8 A.M. to 8.30 P.M. he and his wife had spoken to Asha on the telephone, when she had informed them that the night before Asha had gone to the police station at Adarsh Nagar to make a complaint against the appellants (accused).CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 22 of 27We have referred to the complaint made by the deceased Asha and Sanjay Rathore on 28th and 26th April, 2010, respectively and noticed that Ashas complaint was not directed against Sanjay Rathore (PW-2), but was directed against the two appellants after recording the fact that appellant-Laxmi had sold the immovable property.Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) has stated that he was residing with his wife, children and the two appellants in a tenanted property.Laxmi and Jyoti had started residing with them about two-three months back.PW-2, however, in his testimony had claimed that there was no dispute between them and her mother had never asked for dowry.On 1st May, 2010, PW-2 had gone to the clinic to bring medicine for his two sons.However, the four children had accompanied him.10 years, deceased Asha and Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) were staying separately i.e. they were not living with Laxmi and Jyoti.Similarly, Jatinder (PW-14) in his cross-examination had admitted that after Asha's death, he had stayed in the Asha's house for about one month and would look after her four children.Mohan Lal (PW-10) has similarly stated that in March,2010 Laxmi had sold her house and started living with Sanjay and Asha in their rented premises.The fact that Laxmi had recently sold her house and having received the sale consideration was flushed with funds cannot be doubted.Motive and allegation that Laxmi and Jyoti wanted Rs.1 lac and were mistreating and torturing Asha for this reason does appear to be out of place and some-what unusual.The two complaints Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW10/D are rather peculiar.Both Asha and Sanjay Rathore(PW-2) had raised a common grievance, apparently predicated on money matters.Obviously they had sought and taken legal advice.Laxmi and her adopted daughter Jyoti, impugn their conviction vide the judgment dated 16th December, 2011 for having murdered Asha.By order on sentence dated 22nd December, 2011, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).Motive and cause was failure and inability of Asha to meet and arrange for Rs. One Lac, which Laxmi and Jyoti were demanding for purchasing a new house.To prove and establish the case, the prosecution and the impugned judgment relies on dying declarations made by Asha and recorded by CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 2 of 27 SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21) at about 2.05 P.M. on 1st May,2010 at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital and statements of two neighbours, Munna (PW-1) and Lata (PW-4), who had interacted and spoken to Asha in the street outside the house, immediately after the occurrence.The impugned judgment also relies upon the dying declaration recorded on a mobile chip and deposed to by Deepak, brother of Asha.Deepak has appeared as a court witness CW-1, in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2011, which mentions that Deepak had made a prayer to appear as a witness which was allowed.The application, if any, moved by Deepak (CW-1) is not on the trial court record.Mohan Lal (PW-10) and Jatender Kumar (PW-14) father and other brother of Asha have also deposed about their conversation and version given by Asha to them while she was in the hospital.On court question CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 4 of 27 in view of her allude, Lata (PW-4) averred that she had heard Asha telling her sister in law (nanad) "tumnay jalaya hai"(you have burnt me) and she had not heard Asha state that she was burnt by her mother-in- law and sister-in-law.PW-4 had voluntarily stated that that she was a tenant in the same house on the first floor.PW-4 did accept that Asha had made a complaint against the landlord and that she had visited the police station and given a statement in favour of the landlord.The rough site plan was prepared by the first Investigating Officer SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21) in the presence of Munna (PW-1).A latter noting in the said police case file on 1st May, 2010, records that a CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 5 of 27 statement of Munna (PW-1) was separately recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The gist or content of the statement was not reproduced in the noting portion.This statement of Munna (PW-1) recorded uner section 161 CrP.C. was never filed with the charge sheet and is not available in the police file.Asha did not respond and kept quite.Jyoti had accompanied and had gone to the hospital with Asha.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 5 of 27Latas (PW-4) statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9th May, 2010 i.e. 9 days after the occurrence.No explanation is forthcoming to explain this delay, at least after 6th May,2010 when Asha had died.Examination of the police file reveals a signed undated written statement given by Lata (PW-4) acknowledging that on 1st May, 2010 at about 9.30 P.M. she had seen Asha on fire, running from the courtyard of her house to the street.The police vehicle came thereafter and Asha was taken to the hospital.Jyoti had accompanied Asha to the hospital, while Laxmi had stayed behind at their residence.We have noted the court deposition of Lata (PW-4) and have pointed out that Lata (PW-4) in the cross-examination had initially stated that she had not correctly heard Asha stating that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had put her on fire.Subsequently, PW- 4 asserted that she had heard Asha telling her sister-in-law (Jyoti) that she had set her on fire, but did not hear Asha stating that her mother-in- law had put her on fire.At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 172 Cr.P.C.A match box can also be seen on the ground, along with three cups.One cup has fallen down, whereas two cups are upright.It is submitted that there is no indication that there was jostling and struggle at the place where the prosecution alleges that the deceased Asha was set ablaze after kerosene oil was poured on her.SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21) professes having recorded the dying declaration of Asha in the LNJP Hospital at about 2.05 PM on 01.05.2010 after she was declared fit for statement by Dr. Shalini (PW-19).Noticeably, Dr. Shalini (PW-19) was not present when the dying declaration was recorded.She has testified having declared Asha fit for the statement as the patient was conscious and well- oriented in time, place and person and the endorsement was made in the MLC report, marked Exhibit PW-13/A by her.The dying declaration of Asha, marked Ex.PW20/A, became substratum of the FIR marked Exhibit PW-15/A and reads as under:-"I live with my family and I am a house wife.My mother-in-law Laxmi Devi and sister-in-law Jyoti are living in my house for last two months, their rooms are separate.My mother-in-law Laxmi CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 16 of 27 Devi and my sister-in-law Jyoti have been demanding Rs. 1 lacs from me in these two months.They everyday fight with me and my husband on this issue and say that I don't allow him (Sanjay) to give Rs. 1 lacs to them with which they could buy a new house.Today at 9 PM, my husband had gone to meet the doctor and get medicine for children.At 9:30 PM Laxmi Devi and Jyoti came to my room and immediately thereafter Jyoti had poured kerosene oil on me.I had questioned Jyoti as to what she was doing.At that very moment Laxmi Devi caught hold of me.Fire engulfed my whole body.I shouted "bachao bachao" and came out of the house.Neighbour and others had tried to extinguish the fire and I became unconscious.When I regained conscious I found myself in the hospital.My mother-in-law Laxmi Devi and sister-in-law Jyoti have done this, with the intention to kill me as I and my husband were not giving them Rs.1 lac.Both of them had put kerosene oil and had lighted the fire and tried to kill me.Please take legal action against Laxmi Devi and Jyoti.You have recorded my statement as I've told you.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 16 of 27As per the said dying declaration, Jyoti had poured kerosene oil on Asha and Laxmi caught hold of her while Jyoti had set her on fire.Asha was then having tea.The photographs marked Exhibit PW-3/A-1 to Exhibit PW-3/A-10 do not show any sign of struggle or Asha had put up any physical resistance.The kerosene oil plastic bottle was found standing upright, half filled with bluish liquid.The trial court record includes the police control room (PCR) forms.The PCR form record that Jyoti had made a call to the Police Control Room at about 9.44 P.M. that her sister-in-law had set herself on fire.Communications received and recorded in writing thereafter, do CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 17 of 27 indicate that Jyoti had made an identical statement to the police officers who had visited the place of occurrence.As noticed above, the presence of Jyoti is affirmed and not denied by both Munna (PW-1) and Lata (PW-4).CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 17 of 27ASI Anil Kumar (PW-8), one of the first police officers to arrive at the spot has testified that at about 9.43 P.M. he had learnt about fire in house No. 114, Gali No. 1, Adarsh Nagar and had reached there and had taken Asha to the hospital in a PCR van, along with Jyoti (whose name he could not recollect).The last sentence of ASI Anil Kumar (PW-8) examination-in-chief reads:-"...I asked her as to how she caught fire and she told that she herself had put her on fire."The aforesaid sentence though somewhat ambiguous, can be read as Asha had told PW8 that the fire was self ignited.PW-8s testimony would negate the dying declaration recorded by SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21).There is one more aspect, which dents the credibility of the dying declaration purportedly recorded by SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21).SI Matadin (PW-11), in-charge of mobile crime team, has stated in his examination-in-chief that ASI Kuldeep (obviously the reference is to SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21)) had told him that one lady had set herself on fire and she had already been removed to the hospital.PW-21 on visiting the scene of crime had observed a strong smell of kerosene oil in the room and had noticed a two litre plastic bottle with a small quantity of oil.He had also seen a match box and burnt pieces of saree lying outside the house.A photographer had taken photographs.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 18 of 27SI Matadin (PW-11) had visited the scene of crime at about 10.30 A.M.to 11.05 A.M. Till then SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21) was of the belief that Asha had herself set on fire and it was not a case of culpable homicide but suicide.We agree that the statement of SI Matadin (PW-Further, first impression need not be correct, and truth may be different and could have been uncovered.Albeit this was required to be brought out and established succinctly and clearly for otherwise, doubts would persist as to the true and truthful version.Testimony of SI Matadin (PW-11) and ASI Anil Kumar (PW-8) do reflect that the three police officers including SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-21) when they had first visited the place of occurrence, were of the belief that it was a case of self-inflicted injury/ suicide and not culpable homicide committed by the appellant.Thus the relevance of the first statement of Munna (PW-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC on the date of the occurrence itself i.e. 1st May, 2010, which has gone missing.We have gone through the statement of Deepak (CW-1) and have played the video CD produced by him in the Court, inspite of the fact that there is no certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act. He has testified that he was with Asha in LNJP Hospital at about 8 P.M., a day after she had received the burns.She had implicated and stated that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law had caught hold of her hair, poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze.He had learnt from the doctor that Asha had suffered 90% burns and had no chance of survival.At that time, CW-1 had spoken to Sanjay Rathore (PW-2), husband of Asha, who was insisting that Asha should be asked and compelled to CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 19 of 27 change her statement.Fearful and perturbed CW-1 had, therefore, made a video clipping.At that time Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) and Ashas mother and maternal aunt (mausi) were also present in the room, as is apparent from the video itself.On court questioning, CW-1 professed that he had not edited the video clipping.The Additional Public Prosecutor had cross-examined CW-1 and had put a specific question; whether CW-1 had asked Asha as to who was the person who had deceived her and broken her trust.CW-1 had then accepted that he had not made this query and reiterated that Asha had not revealed name of the said person.CW-1 has accepted that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) was present in the room when the video was shot.CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 19 of 27We have played the video in the Court.It consists of three parts.In part one, a male person possibly Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) is clearly visible and can be seen.There are two other parts, recorded at different times.Direct and well thought out questions were put to Asha, who has responded and answered with precision, making categorical assertions.This has effected the spontaneity, which is missing and absent.Questions and doubts persist, whether this recording was induced and motivated? In his cross-examination, CW-1 has stated that this video was made on 2nd May, 2010 between 7 and 8 P.M. We are also somewhat perplexed, why and for what reason this video was made and then held back.Was the video withheld to prevent scientific examination to rule out modification and interpolation? CW-1 CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 20 of 27 professes that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) wanted Asha to change her statement and save his mother and adopted sister.On the contrary, we have on the trial court record, an application filed by Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) dated 10th May, 2010 seeking direction to the police to arrest Jyoti, who was at that time absconding.When he came back, PW-2 came to know that his wife had suffered burn injuries, while the two appellants were at home.He received a call from Jyoti, who had informed that Asha had been shifted to Irwin Hospital (LNJP Hospital) from BJRM Hospital.He claimed that Asha had told him that she had suffered burn injuries due to LPG gas leakage.PW-2 was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but did not support the prosecution version.Mohan Lal (PW-10) in his cross-examination has accepted that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) was in debt and was asking his landlord to pay him Rs.30,00,000/- for vacating the tenanted premises.He has accepted that his son Jatinder used to have meals with Asha and has given the address of Asha as his postal address.He has affirmed that for about 8-CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 23 of 27Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) would meet him daily in the evening.After one month, PW-14 had asked Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) whether he could take the children to Rajasthan, so that they could live in a different environment.Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) had refused and had given threats.Deepak (CW-1) has accepted that he had remained in Delhi for about 17 days after the death of Asha at the residence of Sanjay Rathore (PW-2).The aforesaid evidence would necessarily reflect that before and immediately after the death of Asha, the relationship between the family members of Asha and Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) was cordial and close.Differences arose subsequently, about a month after Asha's death.In these circumstances, we cannot accept , Deepak (CW-1), Jatinder (PW-14) and Mohan Lal (PW-10)'s assertion that Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) was downright inimical to Asha and was supporting and biased towards Laxmi and Jyoti or that he was compelling Asha to change her version given to the police.Differences between Sanjay Rathore (PW-2) and the family members of Asha arose about 30 days after her death.Asha and Sanjay Rathore(PW-2) were married for 13 years and had for several years a separate residence.As per the prosecution version, Ashas two brothers were earlier residing with her and Sanjay Rathore (PW-2).Laxmi is a widow and Jyoti was earlier married, but had CRL.A. 485/2012 Page 24 of 27 separated.Jitender Kumar(PW-14) in his examination in chief has accepted that Laxmi and Jyoti use to reside somewhere at Kewal Park, but they had sold their house and had started living with "us" at B- 114,A. Majlis Park, Delhi.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,616,983 |
C.R.R. 392 of 2019 SB Court 29 In the matter of : Sukumar Rajgopalan Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee Mr. Abhijit Singh ... For the Petitioner The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for leave to amend the cause title in view of the fact that the petitioner is actually challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 and not the order dated 10.08.2017 in this revision.Leave is granted to amend the cause title.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.On 23.05.2017 the de facto complainant lodged a First Information Report against the present petitioner under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Even without serving a notice under section 41A of the Code, the petitioner was arrested.Subsequently, on 13.06.2017 the petitioner was granted bail, inter alia, on the condition that he should deposit his passport to the Investigating Officer of the case.It is true that the passport was deposited and the said condition was not challenged before any Court of law.Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for return of the passport, but the same was refused by the learned Court below.Perhaps technically the petitioner ought to have filed an application for the relaxation of condition of bail.Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State 2 through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite party no. 2 by speed post with acknowledgement due, within a week.An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.Let this matter appear under the heading 'Contested Application' two weeks hence.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Jay Sengupta, J.)
|
['Section 498A 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.