Datasets:

Fawazzx
/

full

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 42.8k rows

id int64 17 1.89B	cases stringlengths 8 539k	labels stringlengths 38 1.25k	instruction stringclasses 1 value
157,621,091	PrayerThis Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement dated11.6.2004 passed in CA.No.62/2002 by the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, FTC-II, Tuticorin, confirming the judgement passed in SC.No.209/1995 by the learned Sub Judge, Kovilpatti.!For Petitioner ... Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Ayyappan, GA:Order This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement ofconviction and sentence dated 11.6.2004 passed in CA.No.62/2002 by the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Tuticorin, thereby confirmingthe conviction and the sentence of fine amount, but modifying the sentence ofimprisonment of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment to five years RigorousImprisonment, made in SC.No.209/1995 by judgement dated 4.7.2002 by the learnedSub Judge, Kovilpatti.In so far as the Petitioner/A4 is concerned, the TrialCourt convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 395 read with397 of IPC (one count) to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to paya fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonmentand acquitted the Petitioner/A4 for the offence under Section 395 read with 397of IPC in so far as the other count is concerned.According to the Prosecution, on 26.9.1992 at about 8.30 p.m. inthe Vilathikulam-Sathur Main Road, the accused persons, namely, the Petitionerherein/A4 and A1 to A3 waylaid the witnesses PW.1 to PW.5 and committed robberyof a cash of Rs.325 and another cash of Rs.29700/- from those witnesses and alsocommitted robbery of watch from one Velusamy Thevar and ornaments, namely, ear-stud, gold ring and chain from his wife and accordingly, the accused werecharged for the offence under Sections 395 read with 397 of IPC (2 counts).The learned counsel would contend that thePetitioner/A4 was convicted on the basis of the recovery of gold ear stud fromthe house of the accused pursuant to his confessional statement to the Policeand that when the Petitioner/A4 has not been identified by any of the witnessesand when there is no evidence to connect the petitioner/A4 with the actualparticipation in the dacoity, the recovery would not by itself prove that thearticle recovered at the instance of the Petitioner was the subject matter ofdacoity.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Petitionerrelied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2011-3-SCC-Crl-457 (State of Rajasthan Vs.Talevar and another).On the other hand, Mr.S.Ayyappan, the learned GovernmentAdvocate supported the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence andsubmitted that there is no scope for interference.This court heard the learned counsel on either side and alsoperused the materials placed on record.According to the Prosecution, the occurrence took place on26.9.1992 at 8.30 p.m. Admittedly, it was dark night and there was no light inthe place of occurrence.PW.2, from whom gold chain, ring and ear stud weresaid to have been robbed, has deposed that she had seen the accused inPalayamkottai Prison.The identification of the Petitioner/A4 in theidentification parade was rejected by the lower Appellate Court on the groundthat the accused had already been shown to the witnesses and referred to theadmission made by the said witnesses that they had seen the accused in thePolice Station even before the identification parade conducted in thePalayamkottai Prison.None of the witnesses in their earlier statements or inthe oral evidence gave any description of the dacoits whom they have alleged tohave identified in the identification parade nor did the witnesses give anyidentification marks, i.e. stature of the accused or whether they were fat orthin or of a fair colour or of dark colour.In the absence of any suchdescription and taking note of the fact that the accused had been shown to thewitnesses in the Police Station even before the identification parade, it willbe impossible to convict the accused on the basis of a single identification, inwhich case the reasonable possibility of mistake in identification cannot beexcluded.But, however, the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, onthe basis of recovery of ear stud from the house of the accused pursuant to hisconfession, in so far as the Petitioner/A4 is concerned, held the Petitioner/A4guilty for the offence under Section 395 read with 397 of IPC.Since theevidence of identification parade has been disbelieved, the position is thatthere is no legal evidence to connect the Petitioner/A4 with the actualparticipation in the dacoity said to have been committed by the dacoits in theplace of occurrence, except the recovery.Yet another discrepancy which has a bearing on the recovery isthat though the occurrence had occurred on 26.9.1992, but the recovery has beenmade after a delay of nearly 16 days.The recovery by itself cannot be aconclusive evidence in this case, because there has been a delay of as many as16 days after the occurrence in the recovery of articles.According to the Prosecution, the accused himself removed theear stud from PW.2, but PW.2 has stated in her evidence that she herselfremoved the ear stud and gave it to the accused on she being threatened by them.She makes a general statement that all the accused threatenedher with knife and she was forced to remove her ear stud, chain and ring.The test identification of the accused is liable to be ignored onaccount of doubt about its fairness and the identification of case property alsohas to be discarded, because PW.2 in this case has not stated that the ornamentsi.e.the case property was the one which was stolen from her.Neither there isany evidence from the investigating officer identifying the ear stud as thestolen property.Thus, the law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that where theonly evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, thenalthough the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might havebeen committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that theperson in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder.It alsodepends on the nature of the property so recovered, whether it was likely topass readily from hand to hand.In such a fact situation, we reach the inescapableconclusion that no presumption can be drawn against the said two Respondentaccused under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. No adverseinference can be drawn on the basis of recoveries made on their disclosurestatements to connect them with the commission of the crime."In view of the above said circumstances in the present case,there is no evidence that the article, which was recovered at the instance ofthe accused, was the subject matter of dacoity, as it is not identified by theProsecution witnesses, more particularly, PW.2 to the effect that the propertyrecovered from the accused was theproperty stolen from her.In these circumstances, even there cannot be apresumption that the Petitioner/A4 was a receiver of the stolen property.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgement convictionand sentence imposed on the petitioner/A4 is not sustainable.In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed.	['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
157,624,237	The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him back in service from the date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits and to treat his suspension period between 08.08.2012 to 05.09.2012 as spent on duty.W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 1 of 44The petitioner was serving as a constable in the Delhi Police.On 07.06.2012, the petitioner was absent from duty purportedly on account of medical rest.The petitioner and one other constable, namely, Ajeet Singh, while they were posted in Special Unit, Crime Branch were arrested along with two civilians, namely, Harender Yadav of Distt.Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. and Baldev Singh of Distt.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the other constable Ajeet Singh were both caught red handed while committing the crime of kidnapping for ransom of Sh.Sushil Bansal, Executive Engineer from his residence.They were also found to be in possession of their ID cards, apart from one fake identity card of CBI having the photograph of the petitioner and fake identity as Rajender Kumar, SI/ CBI.Mr. Satyakam submits that the petitioner and constable Ajeet Singh appear to be desperate criminals.In this regard, he has referred to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.09.2005, which records the facts on the basis of which the said order was passed.The same, inter alia, reads:"The two constables namely Constable Ajeet Singh, No.1645/ Crime (PIS No.29990041) and Constable Mukesh Yadav, No.730/ Crime (PIS No.28900968) posted in Special unite, Crime Branch (here-in-after called the accused Constables) alongwith two civilians namely Harender Yadav, r/o Distt.Muzaffer Nagar, UP and Baldev Singh, r/o Distt Bharat Pur, Rajasthan were arrested by U.P. police on the intervening night of 7/8 August, 2012 in connection with the kidnapping for ransom case, forgery, impersonation and Arms Act. Three criminal cases vide FIR Nos.692/12 u/s 364-A IPC PS Kotwali, Bijnour, UP, 741/2012 u/s 171/420/467/468/471 IPC PS Milak, Distt Rampur, UP and 742/2012 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Milak, Distt Rampur, UP were registered against them.They were caught red handed by UP Police.It was found that Constable Ajeet Singh was found absent vide D.D. No.4 dated 07.08.2012, Spl.Unit/ Crime Branch and other accused Constable Mukesh Yadav was also found absent on the pretext of medical rest since 7.06.2012 from their duty.From the perusal of FIR, it revealed that they along with their two W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 21 of 44 known persons kidnapped Shri Sushil Bansal, Executive Engineer, Jal Board, Bijnour, U.P. aged 57/58 years from his residence for the purpose of seeking ransom.A case FIR No.692/12 u/s 364A IPC, PS Kotwali, Bijnour has also been registered into the matter.On personal search of Constable Ajeet Singh, one fake identity card, bearing his photograph and identity as Amit Rana, SI, CBI No.28961331 was seized.His original identity card of Delhi Police, cash Rs.860/-, two mobile phones make Carbon and Nokia were also seized.During personal search of Constable Mukesh Yadav, one identity card of Delhi Police, one fake identity card of CBI No.28882452 having his photograph and identity as Rajender Kumar, SI, CBI, cash Rs.8340/-, four bank ATM cards, two vehicle registration certificate, two driving licenses were seized.In order to execute their plans, accused Constable Ajeet Singh absented himself from his official duty and accused Constable Mukesh Yadav purposely proceeded on medical leave.They had even future plans to extort money from other Govt. officials also as revealed in the disclosure of accused.Such indulgence in criminal activities by police officials not only brings bad name to the department but also distort the image of police in the entire society.The allegation against the petitioner was that there was a gang of criminals consisting of one Sandeep, Jitender Rathi @ Kala, Sanjay, Virender etc., which was involved in several heinous crimes including murder, armed dacoity etc. Nine members of the gang had been caught by the Crime Branch of North Distt.Their interrogation had revealed that the petitioner was an associate of the gang.The offence in which the petitioner was embroiled was committed outside the jurisdiction of respondent-Delhi Police.It was in the State of Uttar Pradesh.The petitioner along with constable Ajeet Singh and others were caught red handed while transporting the kidnapped person on the road.The Tribunal has dismissed the said OA preferred by the petitioner.The petitioner had assailed the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the respondents dismissing him from service by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, as well as the appellate order dated 26.08.2015, and the order dated 08.09.2015 directing the petitioner to vacate the government W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 1 of 44 accommodation.Bharat Pur (Rajasthan) by U.P. police in the night of 7/8.08.2012 for kidnapping for ransom, forgery and impersonation and also under the Arms Act. Three criminal cases were registered against them.It was alleged against the accused - including the petitioner, that they had kidnapped one Sushil Bansal, Executive Engineer, Jal Board from his residence for ransom, for which FIR No.692/2012 u/s 364A IPC was registered at PS Kotwali, Bijnour.During personal search of the petitioner, one identity card of Delhi Police and one fake identity card of CBI No.28882452 having his photograph and identity as Rajender Kumar, SI, CBI and four bank ATM cards, two vehicles registration certificates and two driving licenses, were seized from him.M.C. Katoch, ACP/Crime Branch was ordered by the Delhi Police.The said ACP/ Crime Branch went to Bijnour to conduct the inquiry.Post his inquiry, Mr. Katoch made his report and opined that it was not practicable to hold departmental inquiry W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 2 of 44 against the petitioner, as no one came forward to depose against him and the other co-accused for fear.He also observed that retention of a criminal like the petitioner in Delhi Police would be unjustifiable.Acting on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Railways) vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 dismissed the petitioner, as well as the co-accused Ajeet Singh, from service of Delhi Police without holding an inquiry and by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India with immediate effect.The period of suspension between 08.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 was directed to be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes.The petitioner and the co-accused Ajeet Singh - who was also similarly dismissed, preferred departmental appeals before the appellate authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner of Police.By the impugned order dated 26.08.2015, the same was also dismissed.Consequently, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid O.A.W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 2 of 44The Tribunal, as aforesaid, did not find merit in the petitioner's O.A. and dismissed the same.In the course of its decision, the Tribunal examined a host of decisions of the Supreme Court.The relevant discussion found in the impugned order reads as follows:We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto.The Hon'ble S.C. in a catena of judgment has laid down essential conditions for dispensing with the holding of departmental enquiry.The applicant was reported to be on medical rest since 07.06.2012 but his arrest by the UP Police in night of 7/8 August,2012 in Bijnour District raises enormous doubt his conduct.The recovery of a false Identity Card having the photograph of the applicant but containing the name of Rajender Kumar SI, CBI would cause genuine shadow of doubt with regard to the conduct of the applicant.When the crucial witnesses turned hostile in the criminal court for understandable reasons, the same conduct they would have exhibited even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.There was no basis for the ACP (Crime) M.C. Katoch to claim that no one would come forward to depose against the petitioner and the other accused, for fear.Katoch did not state in his report that he tried to contact any witnesses to record their statements, or that they refused to give their statements out of fear of retribution by the petitioner and the other accused.Ms. Singh has sought to place reliance on several decisions in support of her aforesaid plea.The appellant's representation made to the Inspector General was also rejected.Having failed in his challenge at lower rungs, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.However, it may not be necessary for us to go into the said question.W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 9 of 44It was alleged that in the evening of 25.11.1994, they had raped one lady and also assaulted her husband.The said information was passed on to the Disciplinary Authority by one MLA.The Disciplinary Authority visited the site where the offence was alleged to have been committed.He was accompanied by the SHO PS Shalimar Bagh, Insp.P.T. Rana as well as the Superintendant of Police Badli, Inspector Ravi Shankar apart from the MLA and the complainant - the husband of the prosecutrix.When the party W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 14 of 44 reached the spot at about 10:15 p.m., i.e. one hour after the MLA had passed on the information to the Disciplinary Authority, the prosecutrix was heard screaming in the bushes adjacent to the police picket.The party rushed and caught hold of one person - one of the petitioners, who was only in his underwear, while the other person had escaped in the dark.Subsequently, the other person was caught and identified.The prosecutrix claimed that the petitioners assaulted her husband, and told him to run away from the spot.Later on, both the petitioners made her drink liquor, molested and raped her continuously for about six hours.On the basis of her statement, a FIR was lodged and the prosecutrix and the petitioners were sent for medical examination.Consequently, the learned ASJ acquitted the petitioners.We have merely given these background facts to better appreciate the issue before us, which is the validity of the order dated 30th November, 1994 dispensing with the departmental enquiry".Thereafter, a complaint was received alleging that Delhi Police personnel-including the respondent, had taken the said persons to their vehicle and on the next day morning it came to notice that they had been killed in an encounter.On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.383/2006 u/s 302/34 IPC was registered at PS Timarpur, wherein the respondent was also an accused.The Division Bench observed that in the criminal case the witnesses had deposed against the W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 19 of 44 respondents, which had ultimately culminated in their conviction by the Sessions Court, and the appeals of the respondents in the matter were still pending adjudication.Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition preferred by the State.Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was registered.During search of seized car, one set of number plates having No. HR 51 AC 6188 was found.One file cover having written Central Bureau of Investigation, in which letter addressed to SSP Bijnour, UP was found, wherein action was sought against Shri Sushil Bansal.One official diary of CBI, one official diary of Delhi Police was also recovered from seized car along with one set of handcuffs.One illicit firearm (9 mm pistol) with 16 live cartridges was also recovered from the possession of Constable Ajeet Singh.W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 21 of 44Both accused Constables had hatched a well planned conspiracy with their associates to extort money from a Govt. Official for which they even prepared forged documents and impersonated themselves as CBI officials.To carry out their nefarious design, they also produced an illegal weapon.This shows a deep rooted criminal bent of their minds.M.C. Katoch, ACP/ Crime Branch made after his visit to Bijnour, that considering the desperate criminal act of the petitioner and Ajeet Singh, it was not likely that the witnesses would depose against them in a disciplinary inquiry was completely justified.He further submits that the fact that the petitioner and Ajeet Singh have been acquitted in the said case on account of the independent witnesses - including the complainant turning hostile, only shows that the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report of Sh.M.C. Katoch was entirely justified.W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 23 of 44preferred by the petitioner to assail his dismissal from service by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.On 05.09.2003, he was arrested for his alleged involvement in several criminal cases.FIRs were registered in various police stations against him.He was booked under various provisions of IPC and the Arms Act. In one of the cases filed u/s 395 IPC vide FIR 171/2003 at PS Daurala, UP, he was released by the CJM, Meerut on 15.03.2004 due to non-identification by the witnesses in TIP, and also on account of there being no evidence against him.The petitioner had assailed his dismissal from service on the plea that the criminal cases were still pending against him.Charges had been framed against him in those cases, which were fixed for prosecution evidence.He was dismissed from service on 20.09.2003 on the ground of his involvement with a gangster in a dacoity case, and also on account of pendency of criminal cases against him.The respondent had claimed that during the interrogation of notorious gangster Vikrant @ Vicky, it came to be known that the petitioner was also an accomplice and was identified with the gangster in a police raid against the said gangster.The Disciplinary Authority also claimed to have learnt about the petitioner's involvement in a number of cases in Haryana and U.P.- in respect whereof, cases were registered under various sections of IPC and Arms Act against him.While passing the order of dismissal, the Disciplinary Authority had, inter alia, observed:W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 24 of 44"During the entire process of departmental proceedings the witnesses would be put under constant fear of threat to their person and property from the delinquent Police officer".Specific instances of the involvement of the petitioner with the members of the said gang - known as Bhoori gang, were narrated in the order of dismissals.The petitioner had not reported at the concerned police station about the involvement of gang members in heinous offences.Instead, he had assisted the criminals.The involvement of the petitioner had been revealed during the interrogation of various persons, namely, members of the Bhoori gang.The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority was also dismissed and his revision before the Commissioner of Police was also rejected.The O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal leading to the filing of the writ petition before this Court.Similar arguments were raised in this case, as the petitioner has raised in the present case.It was argued that there was no material to show that the petitioner was in a position to influence or terrorize the witnesses; holding of the disciplinary inquiry was the rule, and dispensing with the holding of the same is the exception.Sufficient reasons for dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry have to exist, and should be recorded so as to W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 27 of 44 conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry in the given facts and circumstance of the case.The petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submission:W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 26 of 44b) Delhi Administration Vs.Ex. Constable Inderjit, 2003 Vol.I AD (Delhi) 32;While rejecting the writ petition, the Division Bench, inter alia, observed:In the present case, Petitioner was hobnobbing with the criminals and was providing help to them.During interrogation of the members of Bhoori Gang Petitioner's name surfaced as the person, who had been meeting them and was providing them help.Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as follows:"(3) He along with his other two accomplices further caused threats of dire consequences to anyone deposing against him in an enquiry/investigation which has further caused a scare amongst colleagues and citizens.Therefore, the appeal was rejected.He stated that he was satisfied:Vide order dated 24-6-1998, the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal.It was only the Inspector General of Police who recorded in his order, for the first time, that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular inquiry, since there was every likelihood that one of the witnesses may come forward to depose W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 37 of 44 against the petitioner.Even this reason was belied by the fact that witnesses were examined in the preliminary inquiry, which formed the basis of the appellant's dismissal.They were both absent from duty on purported medical grounds.Even a fire arm was recovered from the party.The fake identity card of the petitioner and other papers were also recovered, through which the petitioner faked his identity as Rajinder Kumar, SI/CBI.The fact that none of the material witnesses, in fact, deposed against the petitioner and the other accused in the criminal trial- and they turned hostile, fortifies the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority that the witnesses would not depose in a regular departmental inquiry out of fear of retribution.The petitioner has placed on record the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge, Bijnaur, in S.T. No. 646 of 2012 (Crime No. 692/2012) titled, 'State Vs.Ajeet Singh and others' registered at police station Kotwali City Bijnor, wherein Ajeet Singh is shown as first accused and the petitioner-Mukesh Yadav as the second accused.A perusal of the said judgment shows that the complainant Tek Bahadur - who was the domestic servant of Shri Sushil Bansal i.e. the person kidnapped for ransom, contrary to his earlier statement, stated that he had never seen the accused persons, and did not know them; that his earlier statement recorded before the W.P.(C) 6005/2017 Page 38 of 44 Magistrate was not out of his own free will but given under pressure of police.He retracted from his earlier statement recorded before the learned Magistrate.The kidnapped person Sushil Kumar Bansal also made statements in favour of the accused persons.He stated that the accused persons had not taken him forcibly, nor abducted him.He also stated that they did not demand anything as ransom amount.He stated that the accused were apprehended by the police at check-post, PS Milak, Distt.Rampur, on account of some altercation which had taken place between the accused persons and the police at the check-post.The victim disowned his own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer.He also disowned his statement recorded before the Magistrate by stating that the same was recorded under pressure of police.Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.	['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.
157,625	The fire struck Devi Dayal on his back and he fell down and died.All the witnesses present at the spot and Halke Singh son of Ram Dularey Singh, who was coming after taking water, exhorted the assailants, who took to their heels afterwards.The motive for the incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., is that Devi Dayal was involved in the murder of Ganga Prasad, maternal uncle of Dharam Dass and Shobha Ram and to avenge his murder the two appellants have murdered Devi Dayal.The report of the incident, Ext. Ka-1 on the record, was lodged by Balram at about 10.00 p.m. on 8-4-1980 at P. S. Aata, District Jalaun.The deceased Ganga Prasad had his three nephews, one of them was the informant and the other two Bharat and Sulkhan appeared as witnesses.They may have motive, but not these two appellants.He further admitteid in para 10 that when the appellants challenged only then he could see them.Prior to that he had not seen them.He further stated that when he saw them the appellants were to the east of the boundary wall at a distance of about a foot.According to him at the time of challenge and firing the appellants were at a distance of about 13' from Devi Dayal, Earlier he had stated that Devi Dayal was sitting with his face towards east and his back close to the boundry wall.The witnesses are shown to be sitting at spot, 1,2,3 and 6 in close vicinity to each other.In that situation if we go by the site plan a person making fire from behind the boundary wall from the north-eastern side will not be able to cause the injuries sustained by the deceased and that is why he has made a change and stated that the accused persons were in the north-east and not directly in the east.He further stated that in the east they were at a distance of about a foot and a half towards north.The fire was made by placing the barrel on the wall of the boundry.The moment witnesses challenged, the assailants ran away.This further indicates clearly that till then Halke Singh could not have reached the place of occurrence.He admitted that no stray pellets were embedded in the wall or in the Chabutara.Nobody had asked them to lodge a report.He went inside the house and brought the paper and pen and thereafter sat down to prepare the report.When they started from their house the darkness has started interceding but the lights were not still on.They had gone to the police station on foot.The report was first given to the Head Constable and thereafter he got a copy of the report.The I.O. has given out the details of the incident.The I.O. reached one spot after half an hour of his arrival to the spot.JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.This criminal appeal has arisen out of an order of conviction dated 16-12-1980 passed by Sri M. G. Godbole, Sessions Judge, Jaluan at Orai, in S.T. No. 65 of 1980 under Section 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. Both the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life.Shobha Ram was sentenced simplicitor.The brief facts of the case are that on 8-4-1980, in the evening, the informant, Balaram, was sitting with his father, Ram Kishan including Devi Dayal alias Devi Din, Bhagwan Din sons of Bhoora and another distantly related grand-father Tularam on the Chabutara of his house.They were busy in deliberations.Nearby, on the ground, Bhoora son of Din Dayal Chamar, and Ram Charan son of Ghashita Chamar were also sitting.At about 6.00 p.m. Shobha Ram armed with a licensed gun and his brother Dharam Dass with a double barrel gun came from the side of the temple.They stood near the boundary wall.Dharam Dass exhorted that "the enemy is sitting.Kill him.He may not escape." Immediately, Shobha Ram fired upon Devi Dayal alias Devi Din.The distance between the spot of incident and the police station is six miles.After the registration of the case and preparation of chick report, Ext. Ka-4, the investigation was taken over by P.W. 5 D. N. Chaturvedi.After conclusion of all the formalities, charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-17, was submitted by him against both the appellants.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.They pleaded that they have been involved in the present offence due to pre-existing enmity.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State at length.In order to support its case, the prosecution has produced P.W. 1 Balram, P.W. 2 Bhoora, and P.W. 3 Halke Singh as ocular witnesses.Four formal witnesses were also examined, out of whom P.W. 4 Dr. S. C. Misra conducted the autopsy.P.W. 5 D. N. Chaturvedi is the first Investigating Officer.P.W. 6 is the second Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet.P.W. 7 Ram Gopal Patoria is the person who escorted the dead body to the mortuary.So fas as occurrence and the death of Devi Dayal is concerned, there cannot be any doubt.It cannot be doubted for even a moment that Devi Dayal had met a homicidal health.The medical evidence fully corroborates it.The arguments advanced before us by learned counsel for appellants are as follows :Firstly, that the witnesses are either closely related to the deceased or chance witnesses at the time of occurrence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is remote, and secondly, the medical evidence is in conflict with the case of the prosecution.According to the prosecution, Shobha Ram fired only one shot and no other shots were repeated upon the deceased.It appears to be a hit and run affair.The medical evidence conclusively shows the presence of two shots.This situation, according to the learned counsel for the defence, further discredits the presence of the witnesses at the spot.The prosecution has made crude attempt to wriggle out from the presence of blunt weapon injury upon the person of the victim.The length and breadth of the contusion on the shoulder called for an explanation from the prosecution, according to his submission.The last limb of the argument is that the F.I.R. in the case appears to be ante-timed.Its lodging at the alleged time is highly doubtful.The probability is suggestive of the fact that this F.I.R. came into existence after the preparation of the inquest memo.The inquest shows the F.I.R. to be in two pages, whereas, in fact, this F.I.R., paper No. 7 on the original record, shows to be only in one page.Enormous delay, if the F.I.R. was transcribed, as alleged by the prosecution, in the post-mortem remained unexplained.In this case it is alleged that the occurrence has taken place on 8-4-1980 at about 6.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged at 10.00 p.m. on the same day.Despite that, the dead body was brought to the doctor at 4.30 in the evening on 10-4-1980 and no plausible explanation has been offered for this enormous delay in taking the dead body to the doctor for autopsy.In order to deal with the first and second arguments of the learned counsel for the defence, we have to examine the medical evidence as well as the evidence of the witnesses carefully and with circumspection.The case, as set up in the F.I.R., is that after receiving the injury on his back, victim Devi Dayal fell down and breathed his last.The F.I.R. suggests use of licensed gun by Shobha Ram only once.So far as the other appellant, Dharam Dass, is concerned, though he was shown to be armed with a double barrel gun, no use of gun by him is alleged in the F.I.R.A perusal of the post-mortem examination report, specially ante-mortem injuries, will reveal that the first injury is on the back.There are 11 entry wounds of the size of 0.6 cm.x 0.5 cm.5 on the left and 6 on the right.No tattooing or charring, etc. were found in these injuries.The second firearm injury contained 3 pellets on the right lateral side of back in an area of 12 cm.in a vertical line.The direction is right to left.No tattooing, charring, etc. was present.The third injury contains two pellets in an area of 6 cm.on posterio lateral aspect of right upper arm.Margins inverted.No tattooing or charring etc. was present.A contusion 8 cm.x 4 cm.was found on the right shoulder.There were two firearm wounds of exit on medial aspect of right upper arm.Margins were everted and lacerated.Right lung was punctured in the upper and lower lobes.Stomach was found perforated.Both the stomach and small intestine was found empty, but the large intestine was full.Liver was found punctured.The death, according to the medical opinion, must have occurred more than six hours after the last meal.The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries.The medical evidence is provided by P.W. 4 Dr. G. C. Misra.He has very categorically stated that in his personal opinion the injuries sustained by the victim are of more than one fire.He has clarified this statement by stating that if a hand-filled cartridge is used, which contains about 16 pellets, then this can be the injury from one shot as well.We cannot forget that in the present case use of licensed gun has been alleged.The doctor has stated very clearly that if the cartridge is a standard one, it contained 6 to 9 pellets and in that case these injuries are not possible from a single shot.He has further stated with regard to injury No. 4, the contusion, that if anything of the dimension of injury No. 4 is lying on the ground and the victim falls on that this injury is possible.All these facts have come in the examination-in-chief.He had further admitted in the cross-examination that he has not shown the area of injury No. 1, which was split on the right and the left on the back.Five pellets on the left and six on the right.This he had done because these pellets had a huge dispersal.If the pellets were embedded in an area of 10-12 cm., the area is described in the injury, but since these injuries were covering large part of the back, therefore, he did not note the area.He further stated in para 5 that injury No. 2's direction is right to left, whereas the direction of injury No. 1 is left to right and on the basis of this he is of the opinion that more than one fire had been made upon the victim.From his statement it is very clear that these injuries were not the result of one shot, but more than one shot.Secondly, the contusion cannot be the result of the fall.Thus, from the medical evidence it becomes apparent that the incident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.Now dealing with the evidence of the witnesses, P.W. 1 Balram is the nephew of the deceased.Ram Kishan is his father.Bhagwan Din and Devi Dayal alias Devi Din are the brothes of Ram Kishan.Devi Dayal is the deceased in the incident.These three brothers are the sons of Bhoora.The appellants are also uncles of the informant and cousin brother of the deceased.Ram Kishan, Bhagwan Din and Devi Dayal alias Devi Din's father Bhoora was the brother of Kunji Lal, who is the father of these appellants.This clearly indicates that P.W. 1 is a close relative of both the appellants and the deceased.The only so-called independent witness examined in the case is Halke Singh.So far as Bhoora son of Devi Dayal is con- cerned, he claimed to be sitting there from the very beginning.He is Harijan by cast and the parties, i.e. Balram etc. belong to the upper class of the society.Ganga Prasad was murdered about 14 months before P.W. 1 deposed in the Court.In that murder Bhoora, Ram Kishan and Devi Din were arrayed as accused.In that incident they were acquitted.It is alleged that since thereafter the relations were competely severed between these families.Ganga Prasad was the maternal uncle of these appellants.The informant claims that Ram Kishan, Devi Dayal alias Devi Din, Bhagwan Din are all living separately from each other.His grand father, Bhoora, was living independently in a different house.Their houses are in the vicinity.This witness, P.W. 1, claimed that he is living with his father, Ram Kishan.He has admitted that the house of Halke Singh is at a considerable distance from him.According to him some 2/3 houses after the house of Tota Ram the road turns towards west.The same road after enveloping another 2/ 3 houses turns towards north.Further 2 houses afterwards the third house of P.W. 3 Halke Singh falls.It has further come in his evidence that in front of the house of Halke Singh the house of Shanker Singh is there.In the west of the house of Halke Singh, at some distance, there is a well.He had further admitted that the house of witness Bhoora son of Din Dayal, and Ram Charan are situated in the northern part of the village.He has his house in the southern part of the village.He has admitted that the deceased and Bhagwan Din have their joint agriculture, but his father has separated.Their crop, after harvesting, was lifted same 5/10 days before the incident.On the date of incident, he admits that he had taken his meal at about 10-11 in the morning.He has a shop, but he claimed that on the date of the incident he had not opened his shop at all.When probed why it was not opened, he said that he did not like to open and, therefore, it was not opened.His was a general merchant shop.The defence has suggested to him that his shop was not opened because he had gone to purchase material for his shop to Kalpi.His case is that after taking his meals at 11.00 a.m. he had gone to the new pond, which was under construction and returned back to his home at about.5.00 p.m. He claimed that when he came back to his house he found Ram Kishan, Bhagwan Din and Devi Dayal alias Devi Din sitting together on the Chabutara.According to him at that time P.W. 2 Bhoora and Ram Charan were not sitting there.These two witnesses, as per his admission, arrived there after half an hour of his arrival.Both of them are farmers and have their agriculture.His claim is that this gathering was on account of discussion for the marriage of Tularam's sister.He also sat down there.The bridegroom was already arranged.The discussion was about the articles that were to be purchased.No body asked him to bring anything from the market.He further admitted that Bhoora and Ram Charan were also returning back from the side of the pond.Since his father asked them to enjoy tobacco, therefore, they also sat down.Tobacco was called from inside the house.It was being prepared and in the meantime the incident occurred.According to him, they had no close relation with Bhoora and Ram Charan.On being enquired upon, he told them that he came from the pond.No further talks about the pond ensued thereafter.According to him his Chabutara was about 10-12' (feet) in length and 6-7' (feet) in width.It was in front of the house of Ram Kishan.According to him there are two Chabutaras, This was the inner Chabutara.Devi Dayal, deceased, was facing north-south.Chabutara was about a hand and quarter high from the road.The temple has a boundary wall.Height of it fluctuates.The wall is Pucca.On the east of this boundary wall vacant land of about 1 Bigha is lying.Shobha Ram and Dharam Dass appellants are living jointly.Shobha Ram came from the lane up to the door of the house.He further admitted that in coming to the boundary wall of his house they could have easily come directly from their house.They had not to come through the vacant land.At a distance of 6-7' Neem tree is standing from the boundary wall.In the south of the boundary wall the temple is situated.He has denied the presence of Pujari Ram Narain in the temple at the relevant time, although the suggestion given to this witness clearly indicates that he is making a false statement.Pujari Ram Narain appears to have been living in that temple.He had married his daughter from this temple just a year ago.In order to wriggle out of the false denial made by him, he stated that he did not use to go to the temple.He further stated that since in the morning no Puja was performed and in the evening he did not find the Pujari, therefore, he is saying that he was not there.If Puja would have been performed then the presence of Pujari could have been established.He further stated that he cannot say that any Puja was performed in the evening.There is no fixed time for performing the Puja in the evening.All these statements prima facie made by this witness to deny the presence of the Pujari in the temple because, admittedly, the temple adjoins their house.The F.I.R. of that incident was lodged by the nephew of deceased Ganga Prasad.He has two more nephews Bharat and Sulkhan.These two nephews were also witnesses of that murder case.Shobha Ram was witness but Devi Dayal did appear as a writness in that murder but subsequently he denied this fact.He admitted that the report in the murder case of Ganga Prasad was a true report.They did not nurse any malice against the maker of the F.I.R. of that case.He further stated that he had no animosity against Shobha Ram and Dharam Dass.This clearly indicates that the shooting has been resorted to upon the deceased from the back, that is from the south and not from the eastern side.If the shooting was resorted to from the eastern side the injuries ought to have been on the front of the deceased.If we examine the site plan the house of Shobha Ram is shown to be in the north east side and Neem tree is shown inside the temple.He further stated that since Ganga Prasad died as a result of fire made by Devi Dayal, therefore, he had inferred when Dharam Dass challenged Dushman is present, he intended to kill Devi Dayal.They could not get any opportunity to run away because immediately on the challenge of Dharam Dass, Shobha Ram opened fire.The I.O, came there at about 12.00 in the night.No statement of his was recorded at the police station although he had told everything to the I.O. His statement was recorded by the I.O. in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. at the spot.The dead body was despatched at about 8.00 a.m. to Orai.Halke Singh was called by the I.O. to the spot and thereafter his statement was recorded.Bhoora and Ram Charan were also summoned by the I.O., but they were not available.He pleaded ignorance whether the I.O. has recorded the statement of Bhoora and Ram Charan at all.When the fire was made Halke was about 12-14' from the house of Devi Dayal alias Devi Din.Devi Din's house is about 20-25' from the house of Ram Kishan in the south.A suggestion was given that in the partition Bhoora had got bigger share of the property than the other brothers.Thus, from a perusal of the statement of PW 1 what transpires is that his presence at the spot is highly doubtful for the reason that he is a shopkeeper.Firstly the reason given by him for not opening the shop on that date is not appearing to be genuine and correct.The defence has suggested him that he had gone to Kalpi to fetch necessary material for the shop.From his own admission it appears that the talks amongst the brothers were for the marriage of the siter of Tularam, an uncle by relation.Then also the probability is that this witness may have already been in Kalpi for the purpose of purchasing necessary materials for the marriage as well as for his shop.There appears to be some substance in the suggestion made by the defence to this witness.His explanation does not impress us that he had not opened the shop because he did not like to on that particular day.His statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was not recorded by I.O. at the police station.Secondly, his father and Bhoora were also accused in the murder of Bhagwan Dass.Both of them were present but no fire was made on any of them.According to the prosecution and this witness, only one shot was fired, but the medical evidence runs contrary to the deposition of these witnesses including PW 1 Balram.According to medical opinion, two shots were fired.So far as PW 3 Halke Singh is concerned, we have already stated in the preceding paragraph that his presence at the spot is highly doubtful.He has claimed that he was coming back after taking water at the relevant moment.The well, according to him, is about 50-60 steps south.His house has not been shown in the site plan.A well is shown in the site plan in the northern side.He has very clearly stated that Devi Din fell down on his left shoulder after receiving the shot.The Law of Motion shows clearly that after receiving gunshot injury a person used to fall in the opposite direction generally.In this case injuries are on the back of the victim and, therefore, it is probable that the victim, after receiving injuries on his back, may fall faceward.He has denied the defence suggestion that any one had struck Lathi blow on Devi Dayal.According to him, the place where these appellants were standing behind the w all, the wall was about 2-1 /2 hands high, which means about 4-1/2 to 5' in height.He claimed that he had seen Shobha Ram firing the shot.It was fired by placing the barrel on the wall.Only one fire was discharged.He admitted that just behind his house after another house there is a well.Therefore, in our opinion he had no reason to come so far for taking water.From his own admission, near his house there are some more wells in the southern part itself.Therefore, it is unbelievable and unacceptable that a person will travel such a long distance to take water.The explanation given by him that water of the wells in the victinity of his house was not sweet, but was salty is deliberate and wholly unacceptable to us.Balram has not made any such statement.He has admitted the presence of several wells in the southern part and northern part.He was called from his house in the morning by the I.O. after the body was despatched for postmortem on 9-4-1978 and his statement was recorded thereafter.We have no doubts in our mind that PW 3 Halke Singh is a completely got up witness and his evidence is unreliable.Now coming to the statement of PW 2 Bhoora, we do not feel it safe to place any implicit reliance upon the testimony of even this witness.The only reason provided by PW 1 for their presence does not stand the scrutiny.They were asked by his father to share Tobacco.As earlier stated, these witnesses belong to Schedule Caste.It is common knowledge that in the village neither water nor Tobacco is being shared by the people of upper caste with the people of lower cast.Ram Kishan called him to share Tobacco, therefore, he sat there.He admitted that the pond was being dug for the last 15 days.About 200 labourers from the village were employed in the digging of this pond, but he denied, deliberately, that he and Ram Charan were not amongst the labourers.He stated that he had no specific reason for going to the pond on that day.According to him, there were 10-12 more people, who were watching the digging of the pond.He stated that he reached the pond around 4.00 p.m. This time he was telling by approximation.He admitted that on the pond he met Ramadhar, Ram Dass, Lotan, Ganga Din, etc. He claimed that when he returned from the pond it was quite bright.At about 5/ 5.30 he claimed that he stated his return from the pond.According to him the pond is about 100 steps away from the house of Ram Kishan.He stated that the fire was discharged after 10 minutes of his arrival.According to him, all the other persons, such as Ram Kishan, Bhagwan Din and Tularam were sitting in the north.Only Devi Dayal was sitting with his face to west and back toward east.The rest of the persons were sitting with their face towards Devi Dayal alias Devi Din.They talked about the pond and their faces were towards east.Devi Din was sitting at a distance of 5-7 hands from him.This situation, in our opinion, is unacceptable.If they had to talk about the marriage of the sister of Tularam, then in all likelihood they will sit close to each other.As stated by PW 1 that in between him, his father Ram Kishan, Bhagwan Din and Tularam, the distance was hardly 9" to 12".We are unable to understand that why the deceased Devi Dayal will sit from them at a distance of 5-7 hands with his back towards the wall.This is only to explain the presence of the injury on the back and complete absence of any injury to others.Both the witnesses (PW 1 and PW 2) are saying that they could see the assailants only after the exhortation or challenge thrown by Dharam Dass.It does not appear to us probable and acceptable that anyone will do so.If they had an intention to kill in the manner in which they had, it does not seem to us believable that they will throw any challenge.They had sheltered themselves behind the wall, which was about 4/5' in height.In these circumstances, we feel that all this has been the ingenuity of the Investigating Agency.Only a single fire has been made in the incident, but the medical report shows that two independent shots appear to have been fired.Apart from that the presence of blunt weapon injury remained completely unexplained.The crude attempt made by the prosecution to explain it by a fall does not stand any scrutiny especially considering the hight of the Chabutra.This witness also has no plausible reason to state that he sat to chew tobacco.Even their going to the pond is not substantiated from any credible evidence.Even the investigation in this case appears to be very sketchy and lacklustre, bordering ingenuity.No attempt was made by the I.O. to arrange for the light in the night.Why the statement of the informant was not recorded at the police station is also unexplained.It is admitted to the I.O. that Halke Singh was summoned and thereafter his statement was recorded.He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of PW 2 Bhoora.No report for sending the blood stained earth, simple earth and other articles stained with blood for analysis by the chemical examiner made.Even there is no report for comparing the recovered spent cartridge and tickles with the gun to the Ballistic Expert was also made.He admitted that at the spot 'A' from, where the shot is shown to have been made, the wall was about 4' high.It was enough for the assailants to hide themselves.According to him the Chabutara, on which the deceased and the witness were sitting, was about 1 -1/2' high.From this height no such injury on the shoulder is probable.He admitted that he did not deem it necessary to record the statement of Balram after transcription of the report at the police station.There is a mention of sending of the special report in the G.D., but who and at what time it was taken to the superior officials is not in his knowledge.He was not able to tell as to how many houses in north and south of Ram Kishan's house are there.In the north of temple and in the north of the house of Tularam, whose houses are there, he was unable to tell.He has not noted down any such house in the site plan.Bhoora's testimony can also easily be discarded for such a delayed examination under Section 161, Cr.P.C.Now the dead body is claimed to have been handed over to the Constable Ram Gopal Patoria on 9-4-1980 at 7.45 in the morning.He claimed that the body was handed over to him along with relevant papers.He further claimed that he reached the headquarter, i.e. Police Lines, Orai, at 16.35 hours on that very date.In cross examination he admitted that the distance between Aata and Orai is only 18 Kms., it is unacceptable to us that he started at about 7.45 in the morning and yet he had taken about 10 hours in arriving at the Police Lines, Orai, covering a distance of about 18 Kms.Even this much time could not have been taken if the body would have been brought on shoulders.He admitted that the body was brought on a carrier.He further admitted that at about 4.30 in the evening on 10-4-1980 the body and the paper were handed over to the Doctor for postmortem, that means exactly after 24 hours the body being brought to the Police Lines.In the circumstances of this case almost two days' time was used by the prosecution in bringing the body for postmortem to the mortuary raises a serious doubt in the authenticity of the fact that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged at 10.00 p.m. This fact is further corroborated from the circumstance that the inquest memo shows the chick F.I.R. to be in two pages, whereas the copy appeneded along with the papers sent with the inquest memo shows the F.I.R. to be only in one page.This gives an indication also that some bungling was committed regarding F.I.R. It appears that initially some other report was there and subsequently a fresh F.I.R. was prepared in the morning in collusion with the police.For the reasons that we summarise as under, firstly, that the medical evidence in this case is in conflict with the occular testimony, secondly, the F.I.R. does not appear to have been lodged at the time, as alleged by the prosecution, and thirdly, the manner of the assault, as stated by the witnesses, that are all rendered doubtful by the conflicting medical evidence.Presence of witnesses is highly doubful.For these reasons the presence of the witnesses, i.e. PW 1 Balram and PW 2 Bhoora, whose statements were recorded after 5 weeks, and PW 3 Halke Singh, who had absolutely no reason to be there, and the explanation offered by him is unbelieveble in the circumstances of the case, we find it unsafe to place any reliance upon their evidence.In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and consequent sentence passed against the appellants by the Court of Sessions, as aforesaid, is hereby set aside.The appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds and sureties are hereby discharged.	['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
157,627,995	Faizil Banu was constructing a house at Neithavasal, Needur Village in Nagapattinam District.The deceased was employed as a Watchman in the said house under construction.During day time, the other workers used to work in the building under construction whereas, the deceased was employed as a Watchman between 6.00 pm and 7.00 am. P.W.3, is the son of the deceased.P.W.1 is the father of Ms.Faizil Banu.He was taking care of the construction of the said building and thus, he only employed the deceased as Watchman.Every day, after the work was over, as soon as all the workers had left, P.W.1 used to lock the main door of the house leaving the deceased to sleep in the car shed, in the same house.The key of the outer gate of the house used to be in the possession of the deceased.At 7.00 am, on the next day, after his duty time was over, it was his practice to hand over the key of the gate to P.W.1 and to leave for his house.3.On 02.06.2004, as usual, at 6.00 pm, the deceased turned for duty.A drilling machine was kept by P.W.1 inside the house.4.On 03.06.2004, at 9.00 am, P.W.1 returned to the house under construction.He found the outer gate kept opened.He also found that the main door of the house was also opened.The deceased was not seen anywhere.When he entered the house, he found that the main wooden frames in the entrance of the house were all burning.When he further entered into the house, he found the clock, Television set and other articles had already been burnt to ashes.The locks were found broken.Suspecting some foul play, he sought the help of a neighbour and with him, he made a search for the deceased.When they went behind the house, they found the septic tank opened and found the deceased lying inside the same.The hands and legs of the deceased were tied with cloth and the same would indicate that the deceased was done to death by somebody.P.W.1 immediately informed the same to his relatives as well as the relatives of the deceased.In the complaint, he mentioned about the above facts and also mentioned that there was no theft committed from the house.P.W.8, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.885/2004, for offence under Sections 457, 511, 436 & 302 I.P.C. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the assailant was not known.P.W.8 forwarded Ex.P.1 (complaint) and Ex.P.2 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.P.3 is the chemical analysis report.P.W.2 gave final opinion that the deceased would have died 36 to 48 hours prior to post mortem as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to the head injuries.P.W.14 recovered the cloth materials from the dead body of the deceased.Though he conducted investigation, examined many witnesses and tried his level best to unearth the truth he was unable to make any break through until he was transferred.9.The investigation was thereafter taken over by P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police.He examined few more witnesses including the Doctor and he also could not make any breakthrough in the case until he was transferred.He also could not make any breakthrough in the investigation.Along with Ex.While in custody, A.1 made a voluntary confession to P.W.15 in which, he disclosed that he had hidden a drilling machine at his house.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, A.1 took P.W.15 and P.W.5 to his house and produced M.O.1 drilling machine.Faizil Banu.He has further stated that on 02.06.2004, at 7.00 pm, the deceased reported for duty and he was alone there.He has further stated that he locked the main door of the house after keeping the drilling machine inside the house.J) The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.163 of 2008 on the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.A.2 was one Mr.The trial Court framed as many as four charges against the accused.By judgment dated 18.10.2012, the trial Court acquitted A.2 from all the charges and convicted A.1 for offence under Sections 302, 380, 436 & 201 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.The deceased in this case was one Mr.Eali @ Rajangam.One Ms.P.11 (F.I.R) to Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, received the same on 03.06.2004 at 4.30 pm.6.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police.He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 4.15 pm on 03.06.2004 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness and he also recovered a blood stained wooden log and another wooden reaper with blood stains, a broken steel lock, a steel nut and two steel bolts under Ex.P.5 mahazar, in the presence of the same witnesses.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem.7.P.W.2 Dr.Maruthappan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.06.2004 at 11.00 am and found the following injuries:-1.An abrasion seen on the left parietal region of scalp near midline 5 cm x 1 = cm with clotted blood.2.On dissection the subcutaneous tissue ecchymosed and subcutaneous hematoma of 40 grams size present.Fracture of left occipital bone present (crack fracture).Brain membranes congested on left side.Intra cerebral hemorrhage seen on the left cerebral hemisphere.Brain substance soft and pulpy.According to him, A.1 was one of the suspects in the case.P.W.15 recovered the same under a mahazar.P.W.15 took police custody of A.2 and he also gave a voluntary confession but, no fact was discovered out of the same.On completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet against both the accused.12.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against both the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited, besides 19 Material Objects.13.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of Ms.Faizil Banu.He has stated that the deceased was employed as a Watchman in the house under construction for his daughter Ms.He has further stated that on the next day, when he came to the house at 9.00 am, he found the deceased missing.The outer gate of the house of the house was opened; the door frames were burning inside and the Television set and other articles in the house had been burnt.He found the dead body of the deceased in the septic tank.Hands and legs of the deceased were tied.Then he made a complaint to the Mayiladuthurai Police Station.He also identified M.O.1 drilling machine which was lastly kept by him inside the house.P.W.2 has spoken about the post mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. P.W.3, the son of the deceased has stated that on 02.06.2004, the deceased left the house for duty and on the next day, he heard that the deceased was lying dead.P.W.4 has also spoken about the same facts.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and a rough sketch and the recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.6, the then Village Administrative Officer has stated that the deceased appeared before him on 02.06.2007 and made a voluntary confession under Ex.A.1 made a voluntary confession out of which, M.O.1, was recovered.P.W.10 a Grade I Constable has stated that he carried the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital for post mortem.P.W.11, the Assistant Director of Forensic Department has stated that he examined the internal organs of the dead body of the deceased which revealed that there was neither poison nor alcohol.P.Ws.12 to 14 have spoken about the investigation done by them and P.W.15 has spoken about the final report which was filed by him.14.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did they mark any documents on their side.15.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the appellant/A.1 guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The trial Court however acquitted A.2 from all the charges.The dead body of the deceased was found lying inside the septic tank and his hands and legs were tied by using cloth.19.P.W.2, Dr.He has opined that the deceased would have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injuries and the death would have occurred 36 to 48 hours prior to the post mortem.It tallies with the time of death projected by the prosecution.P.W.15 has stated that the appellant/A.1 was one of the suspects in the case.It is not explained to the Court as to why there was no house search made for about three full years though, they had suspicion that A.1 would have involved in the murder of the deceased.It is highly unbelievable that after a span of three years, A.1 would have gone to the Village Administrative Officer on 02.06.2007 and made an extra judicial confession.All these three years, A.1 was very much available in the Village and according to P.W.15, the appellant/A.1 was one of the suspects.Though, four police officers in quick succession had investigated the case, no breakthrough could be made.We do not believe that after a period of three years, A.1 would have any need to meet the Village Administrative Officer to make an extra judicial confession.Above all, it is not in evidence that A.1 had any acquaintance with P.W.6 so as to repose confidence in him and to confess.It is again doubtful that he would have chosen a total stranger to confess.Further, in this case, there is no evidence that the appellant/A.1 was anywhere found near the place of occurrence at or about time of occurrence.22.According to the case of the prosecution, M.O.1 was stolen from the house under construction.But, a perusal of Ex.23.According to P.W.1, the door frames were found burning at the time when he entered the place of occurrence.P.W.1 has further submitted that the television set and the valuable articles had been burnt to ashes.If it was a case of murder for gain, the main culprits would not have taken only a small worthless drilling machine after having caused the damage to the valuable properties in the house.has been created and the case has been given a decent burial.P.W.1 has admitted that M.O.1 was not even shown to him before, and for the first time, M.O.1 was identified by him as the stolen property only in Court during trial.	['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
157,645,124	This application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail.The counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with liberty to file a properly constituted bail application.With the aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.	['Section 147 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 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,553,139	Shyam Lal had lodged a missing person report with the Police.The prosecution contended that on 23.03.2000 Mahesh and Parvesh went to Surender's, (an Electrician's) shop at Najafgarh; he was Mahesh's friend.On that day i.e. 23.03.2000 Parvesh and Mahesh reached Surender's shop.All the four appellants (who reached there later, along with Parvesh's mother Rajindri), took Parvesh and Mahesh away with them.Subsequently on 26.03.2000 Mahesh's dead body was discovered near the Nazafgarh drain, near Chawla Bridge.The body showed injury marks and it appeared that Mahesh had died on account of beating.Surender (hereafter referred to as "PW-12") and Mahesh's brother Umesh (hereafter referred to as "PW-9") identified the dead body at Subzi Mandi mortuary.A post mortem was conducted which indicated that the dead body had several injuries on various parts of the body; death was caused by throttling.An FIR was registered, and investigation commenced.The prosecution alleged that the deceased was taken from Surender's shop in a Tata Sumo to Gurgaon where he was subjected to beating by the appellants.From Gurgaon he was taken to Roshan Vihar at Najafgarh where he was again beaten.The prosecution alleged that due to the injuries and beating, the deceased could have raised an alarm.He was shifted to some other place.It was alleged that Lalit @ Pinki arranged a Maruti van no. HR26F6207, which belonged to Deepak @ Deepu.The four appellants sat in the Maruti Van and took Mahesh with them; they proceeded to village Shikharpur where they called Jagmohan @ Jag and Sunil @ Pappu and talked with them.Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 2The prosecution alleged that Jag and Pappu were friendly with Devender.They sat in the van at his (Devender's) insistence and headed to Gurgaon through the fields.It is alleged that after a short distance Devender stopped the van and along with the appellants took them aside in the pretext of having some deliberations.It was alleged that Deepak heard some noises and screams and then he saw that Jag was holding the deceased's hand, whereas Sunil and Shyamlal were holding the deceased's head.Devender had a hockey stick with him; Himmat had a danda and they were beating the deceased.The Appellant Pritam was instigating others to beat Mahesh.Deepak is reported to have stated that, (when he enquired why this was done), the accused told him that the deceased Mahesh had spoiled their honour and would not be spared.(5) The witness had mentioned about a quarrel between Mahesh and Shyamlal's family, in the police statement, which he did not support in his deposition in Court.The starting part of the prosecution story, in this case was the motive aspect.That DD entry extract was proved as Ex. PW- 16/A. The incident, and what actually transpired on the day of abduction was spoken about by PW-12, the deceased's friend.I came to mortuary Subzi Mandi and identified the dead body of Mahesh there.The identification of dead body is Ex. PW-12/A which bears my signature at Point A. "Therefore, Shyam Lal and two other accused come to his house and informed about it.After some time Surender informed him on Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 19 telephone that Shyam Lal and six others had taken Mahesh in a Tata Sumo to some unknown place; he had also disclosed the number of the Tata Sumo.PW-9 identified accused Shyam Lal, Devender and Himmat to be the persons who had come to him.Subsequently, he identified the dead body at Subzi Mandi mortuary by Ex. PW9/A. This witness was specifically asked whether he had recorded the Tata Sumo number given by Surender; he produced a diary and a torn page from it and exhibited as Ex. PW9/DX.Before that, Parvesh and her mother had talked to each other.(5) The witness (PW-12) identified the Appellants, though in his deposition he was not able to mention their names in the beginning.(6) PW-12 deposed having informed PW-9, - a fact corroborated by the latter, in his deposition.(7) PW-9 and PW-12 identified Mahesh's dead body.They also threatened Deepak, upon which he left the spot.After some time, Jag and Sunil brought back the Maruti van and left.The prosecution alleged that the appellants were subsequently arrested.Pursuant to their disclosure statements when they lead the Police to various places where the deceased had been taken, weapons of offences such as hockey stick and thapi were recovered.The prosecution alleged that after the incidents narrated by Deepak the deceased was brought once again to Roshan Vihar where again he was beaten.The appellants allegedly conspired to get rid of him since he had suffered series injuries.Devender caught hold of Mahesh legs; Pritam and Himmat caught hold of his hands and Shyam Lal sat on his chest and strangulated him till he died.Shyamlal allegedly sent Himmat to arrange a vehicle to dispose of the body.He hired a Maruti Car No.DL1CB2554 driven by Sukhbir @ Billu.He declined to take Mahesh because he suspected that he had died.It is stated that Himmat sat on the driver's seat of the vehicle stating to Sukhbir that he should wait there and that they are taking the Mahesh to the hospital.It was alleged that Himmat sat on the driver's seat (of the said Maruti van) with Devender by his side; Shyamlal and Pritam sat on the rear seat and Mahesh was laid in between the two seats.It was alleged that appellants threw his body near Chawla village near a bridge at a lonely place and returned the vehicle to the driver.The appellants were charged with offence under Sections 302/308/I20B/201/34 IPC.They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.By the impugned judgment and order the trial court convicted all the Appellants.It is urged that the entire prosecution story is built round circumstantial evidence, and that the accused- Appellants were "last seen" in the company of the deceased.The Appellants rely on the judgment reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, and urge that the court has to tread with care and caution while basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence, and avoid the danger of converting suspicion into proof.Reliance is also placed on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343, Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of UP 1974 SCC (Crl.) 429 and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr.It is urged that broadly the circumstances of "last seen" alleged against the appellants by the prosecution were that the deceased was seen last with the Appellants by PW 12 - Surender.The body of the deceased was recovered on 25.03.2000 at about 11.26 AM by DD No.15A - Ex.PW10/A, near Baru Sarai.The said DD No.15A was made the basis of the FIR in the present case.Learned counsel submitted that PW12 was projected as the solitary witness of last seen, on whose testimony the case of the prosecution rests.It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and the possibility of other persons coming in between exists.In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases."Learned counsel emphasized that the dead body was recovered on 25.03.2000 at around 11.26 AM.Time since death was given as 6-7 days approximately.Counsel for the Appellant submitted that to calculate this time gap between the point of time when the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead as referred to in Bodhrajs case (supra), it was incumbent on the prosecution to Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 4 prove the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive.This crucial aspect, according to the Appellants, the prosecution failed to prove in the present case.PW-12 in his testimony did not give the date when he allegedly saw the accused and the deceased at his shop.In fact he deposed "I cannot give the date when Shyamlal and others came to my shop in Sumo to take away Mahesh for my shop." Therefore, when date and time of alleged last seen was unclear, it could not be conclusively said that the time gap between the point of time when accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead, was so small to rule out the possibility of someone, other than the accused, having committed the crime.The Appellant relied on the testimony of PW-8 Govind, (the deceased's landlord) who deposed that the deceased had a quarrelsome nature.Given these circumstances, applying the ratio in Bodhraj, the possibility of somelese having committed the offence could not be ruled out.He further deposed that in the meantime 8-10 persons including the appellants came in a Tata Sumo.The learned counsel argued that though the prosecution failed to prove when Holi was celebrated in the year 2000, yet judicial notice of the fact that in that 2000 Holi was on March 19 can be taken.This, urged counsel, is corroborated by PW-12's statement that after 5-6 days he was called by the Umesh, brother of Mahesh in P.P. Madipur.He further deposed that he went to identify the dead body on day next day to his going to P.P. Madipur with Umesh.By reverse calculation, the date of last seen can also be arrived at from this aspect in the following manner.According to the witness PW-12, body was identified the "next day", on reverse calculation, one day prior would make it 26.03.2000 when the witness went to PP Madipur PW 9 Umesh.Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandhu Kavatage AIR 1979 SC 1410, where the last seen was on 26 July 1974 and the body was recovered on the next day from a well, the Supreme Court held that "as there was sufficient interval between the death of the boy and the recovery of the body, the link in the chain of circumstantial evidence does not appear to be fully complete.""9. ..... According to Bhikjya all the three, i.e., deceased, appellant and Bhamta left his house together.Undoubtedly thereafter deceased was not seen alive by anyone but two persons were in company of the deceased, viz., appellant and Bhamta when they left the house of Bhikjya.Now, Bhamta was the co-accused.Crucially the two main witnesses PW-9 and PW-12 gave Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 7 contradictory versions when they deposed with regard to the conveying of information regarding identity of persons who allegedly kidnapped Mahesh.He had only told me that 5/6 persons had taken away Mahesh in a Sumo TATA."However, PW-12 Surinder's deposition showed shifting stands.He first claimed knowledge about identity (and names) only Shyamlal and Himmat; later, he claimed to know Bittoo as well; yet later, he named all four as those who had come in the Sumo.Such shifting stands of PW-12, contradicted by PW-9, make this witness unreliable with regard to fixing of identity.It is also urged that the said two witnesses also contradict with regard to the number of persons who had allegedly taken away Mahesh.While PW-12 claimed that 8-10 persons had come in the Sumo, PW-9 stated that he was told by Surinder that 6/7 persons had taken away Mahesh in Sumo.Such inconsistency in testimonies renders the "last seen" evidence unreliable.The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the circumstance of last seen, has to be excluded from consideration while assessing if the Appellants were guilty.persons that in pursuance to love affair you all accused persons conspired together to kill Mahesh and in pursuance to your conspiracy you called Mahesh and Parvesh in Delhi at the shop of Surender in the year 2000 prior to Holy near Milind cinema.What have you to say?(6) The witness had mentioned in the previous statement that the accused used to visit him, to enquire about Parvesh and Mahesh.In his deposition, PW-12 mentioned that they had visited him only once.(7) PW-12 had deposed that Parvesh's mother had talked with Mahesh, and abused him -which he had not stated in the police statement.(8) In the deposition-in Court-PW-12 said that Parvesh's mother had gone to his shop two days before Holi - which was an improvement on the Section 161 statement.(10) PW-12 contradicted himself about Mahesh's face injury caused by Shyam Lal.(11) In the statement to police, he claims to have noted the Tata Sumo registration number; but admitted, in his Court deposition, to being illiterate.(12) PW-12's statement about being called 5-6 days after the incident by Umed is not corroborated by him (i.e. PW-9 Umesh).(13) In the previous statement, he claims to have received a telephone call from Mahesh, in his shop.(14) The witness had three different versions as to who were in the Tata Sumo.At one stage, he mentioned that except Shyam Lal and Himmat, he did not know the names Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 10 of other accused.However, he said that all accused used to enquire about Mahesh from him.(15) The witness clearly stated that the incident occurred 2 days after Holi (which was on 19.3.2000).Likewise, submitted counsel, PW-9 wavers in his testimony substantially.He made vital improvements, variations and omissions with regard to various aspects deposed by him.Regarding identity of persons who allegedly took away Mahesh, he gave different versions, at places names some and at another place stating that Surender did not give the name of any person.There is variation with PW-12's testimony, in regard to the number of persons who allegedly took away Mahesh, as told to him.He was confronted with the threat theory that he introduced for the first time in Court.He brought in knowledge of Mahesh's death through Malti also for the first time in Court.The other contradictions, improvements etc. were sought to be pointed out.The chain of circumstantial evidence gets irreparably broken and the link evidence becomes conspicuously missing.The Trial Court itself had not taken the said recoveries/circumstances as incriminating in any manner.The weapons were sent to the forensic laboratory, but were not found to contain any blood.They were not shown to the post mortem doctor to seek his opinion as to whether the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by these weapons.The said weapons thus do not get connected with the offence in question in any manner.The recovery witnesses, none of whom were independent witnesses, admit that they articles were recovered Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 11 recoveries from open places and the weapons were not concealed.Learned counsel points out that the weapons were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the Appellants and that a two day gap between the disclosure and recovery also adds to the suspicion.Without prejudice counsel argued that on this part, i.e the motive, if taken to be proved, for the sake of argument, it can be considered as only incriminating the Appellant Shyamlal the father of Parvesh and against not all others.Motive being a double edged weapon, could be reason for false implication.Learned counsel for the appellant Pritam supplemented the arguments.Although the prosecution case was premised upon circumstantial evidence, learned counsel urged that each circumstance in the entire chain of circumstances was conclusively proved to unerroneously implicate the appellants and none else as the propounder of the crime.Urging that there was a strong motive, which stood established vis--vis the appellants for the commission of crime, learned counsel relied upon PW-16/A, which was a D.D. entry No. 11, recorded by the police on 24.12.1999, stating that Parvesh, the daughter of Shyam Lal was missing.PW-14 proved the D.D. entry No. 5, recorded on 26.03.2000 (Ex. PW-14A), reported by Shyam Lal, which stated that on 22.03.2000, Parvesh returned home.The report went on to state that she had returned voluntarily after she had left earlier with Mahesh and that she was unharmed.They had counseled him not to indulge in it.PW-12 was also aware of the disapproval by Shyam Lal and other members of Parvesh's family.It is further argued that PW-12 also was slightly intimidated because at that time when he sought to intervene, and asked the appellants not to create a scene, he was threatened.The witness was confronted with the statement which he denied.He claimed to be aware of the elopement of Mahesh, and Parvesh, Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 17 and said that the latter's mother had visited him, at his shop.He spoke about how on the day of the incident, the abductors went to his shop in a Tata Sumo and took away Mahesh.The Appellants impeach his credibility by stating that he was inconsistent about the identity of the abductors; in the statement recorded under Section 161, he stated something, and in his examination in chief, and yet later, in cross examination, he deposed differently.The witness, PW12 deposed that Mahesh was his friend and had an affair with Shyamlal's daughter of which he (Shyam Lal) did not like.Parvesh's mother, Rajendri made enquiries from PW-12 about her (Parveen's) whereabouts.PW-12 testified that aproximatelyy two days after the Holi, (in 2000) Mahesh along with Parvesh went to his shop where the latter's mother was already present.He however, knew Shyam Lal and Himmat by their name and according to him, a scuffle took place in his shop, between deceased and the accused.He (PW-12) witness asked them not to behave in that manner.PW-12 deposed that Himmat asked him to keep quiet if he wanted to save himself.The witness testified that he wanted to go with Mahesh in the Tata Sumo but he was not allowed by the accused.PW-12 deposed that all these four persons took Mahesh and Parvesh in the Tata Sumo.Shyam Lal and one or two persons followed the Tata Sumo on a two wheeler.He deposed about informing Mahesh's brother, PW-9, on telephone, about the incident, on the same day.After 5/6 days he identified the dead body of Mahesh at Subzi Mandi mortuary.Significantly (an aspect noted by the Trial Court) in cross-examination PW-12 was specifically asked that mother of Parvesh had given him a telephone number to him with a request to inform her in case Mahesh and Parvesh went to his shop, which he noted on a page in his diary.This was been exhibited as Ex. PW12/DB.He also noted the number of the Tata Sumo in his diary and the extract of the diary was exhibited as Ex. PW12/DA."Out of the person who came to my shop after getting down from TATA Sumo (the witness pointed out toward accd.Davinder, Shyam Lal, Pritam and Himmat) were the persons who came to my shop I dont know these persons by their name except Shyam Lal and Himmat present in the court.These persons had altercation and scuffling with Mahesh (Hatha Pai Karney Lagey).Himmat told me that either I should keep mum or I shall be killed (Saley ya to chup ho jha nahi to tujhe bhi jaaan say maar Deyange).All the 5/6 persons made Mahesh sit I TATA Sumo Car.All these persons took away Mahesh and Parvesh in TATA Sumo Car.Shyam Lal and other1/2 persons followed the TATA Sumo car on two wheeler scooter.I gave a ring to brother of Mahesh on the same day.After 5/6 days I was called by Umesh brother of Mahesh in PP Mdi Pur.Thereafter we both went to P.S. Najafgarh.Equally, in an earlier part of the statement, he did not mention all the names.This however, does not mean that the witness was not aware of the identities of those who went to his shop, on the date of the incident.The above portion of his deposition shows that he knew all the accused, though at that time, he was not aware of the names of some of them.PW-12's deposition, to an extent, receives corroboration from the statement of PW-9, who, at the suggestion of the Appellants, during cross-examination, testified as follows:"It is correct that the telephonic message recd.by me from Surender on 22.3.2000 was to the effect that Mahesh and Shyamlals daughter Parvesh came here today, Shyam Lal, Devinder @ Bittoo Himmat and Pritam came to the shop of electrical goods at Milan Cinema and those people took away Mahesh and Parvesh in Tata Sumo No. DL4CF 9386..."This witness had mentioned about these aspects and what PW-12 had told him, on this, in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. PC.PW9 Umesh Kumar deposed that his brother, Mahesh had a love affair with Shyam Lal's daughter and that she left her house with his brother.In cross-examination PW-9 testified to not receiving any telephonic message from Surender prior to 22.3.2000 nor meeting him.He, however denied that he responded to the telephonic call of Surender by saying "jo jesha karega, vaisa bhareha".A reading of the testimonies of the two witnesses, would show that:Both of them had reached there.If witnesses are exact in their recollection of dates and events, and corroborate each other in all these aspects, the possibility of tutoring is strong.However, inessential inconsistencies, are not material, at any rate, to undermine the basic version.The trial court held that as far as the first part of the prosecution evidence was concerned the testimony of PW12 was trustworthy that the Appellants had gone in the Tata Sumo and took away Mahesh from his shop on 22.03.2000 at about noon time.Apart from this curious aspect, PW-18 had deposed that the Appellants were arrested at the behest of PW-1, and their personal search memos were signed by him, as a witness.These were placed on the record, and proved as Ex. PW-PW-18/H, PW-18/I and PW-18/J. Having regard to these facts, the court is of opinion that the prosecution witnesses having been won over by the accused, particularly since they were known to them, and they belonged to the same village, cannot be ruled out.The Trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution story regarding the recovery of alleged weapons of offence.In the present case, this court notices that the essential facts, such as abduction of the deceased, in the presence of PW-12, the motive, i.e. affair with Shyamlal's daughter, the circumstance of the accused being seen last, with the deceased, and other material circumstances were in fact put to the Appellants.In these circumstances, the omission to put the precise date, (even though the relevant question about their complicity in the crime was put to them) does not vitiate the entire trial, or the conviction.This court notices that the Appellants motive - which stands corroborated by Shyamlal's statement during the trial - was their anger at his daughter's love affair with the deceased, which did not meet his and his family's approval.	['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.
155,316,502	29.07.13 Item No. 49 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 49And In the matter of: Sujit Paul & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioners Ms. Sonali Bhar For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 625 of 2012 dated 03.09.2012 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, Petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in- law and the Petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant.The marriage was solemnized only a month before the complaint was lodged.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 Petitioner No. 1, Sujit Paul does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.Hence, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.d1 As regards the other two petitioners, i.e. Petitioner No. 2, Tapasi Paul (Mondal) and Petitioner No. 3, Annapurna Paul, there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)	['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,317,536	Certified Copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.1502/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No.2- Madan.Appellant No.2- Madan has been convicted and sentenced by the trial court as under:Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2 Madan was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.The quarrel started all of a sudden and it was not pre-planned.It is alleged against appellant No.2 Madan that he assaulted the deceased with a stick causing injuries on his neck.There is no any allegation that he assaulted for the second time.It is alleged against the co- accused Parwat that he assaulted the deceased 2 Cra.624.2015 on his head causing head injury.Appellant No.2 Madan did not know that the co-accused Parwat would cause death of the deceased Heeralal.The common intention of appellant No.2 Madan cannot be presumed with co-accused Parwat, therefore, no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the appellant No.2 Madan either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.The offence of appellant No.2 Madan may, at the most, fall within the purview of Section 325 of IPC whereas he has remained in custody for approximately more than two years.There are fair chances of success of this appeal.Thus, appellant No.2 Madan prays for grant of bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to accept the application of appellant No.2 Madan.Consequently, application I.A. No.1502/17, is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount and if appellant No.2 Madan furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court that he shall appear before the office of 3 Cra.624.2015 this Court first on 27.06.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance till disposal of the present appeal, then appellant No.2 Madan shall be released on bail and execution of his jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal.	['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,318,939	CC as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2017.12.13 11:40:42 +05'30' JP sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig Ha Heard.hy This appeal has been preferred against the impugned ad judgment dated 12.9.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol in S.T. No.92/04 whereby the M appellant has been convicted under Sections 147, 332/149 and of 224 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 3 years along with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for rt 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, with default ou stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.All the C sentences are directed to run concurrently.h Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant ig has already suffered the entire term of his jail sentence as he is in H jail since 12.9.2006 and fine amount has already been deposited.Further, by the order of this Court dated 1.8.2012, the Jail authorities have already been directed that the sentence passed against the appellant in the present case shall run concurrently with the other sentence in which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.In such circumstances, the appellant has already suffered the entire jail sentence and accordingly, this appeal has become infructuous.From perusal of the record it is found that the appellant has been sent to suffer term of imprisonment since 12.9.2006 and he sh has not been released on bail by this court.Therefore, it should be presumed that the appellant has completed his entire term of jail e ad sentence and he be released from jail if he is not required to be detained in any other case.Pr Learned PP appearing for the State submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal has become infructuous and a hy the same be disposed of.In the aforesaid circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by ad entering into the merits of the case as the appellant has already M undergone the whole sentence awarded by the trial court.h ig Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of accordingly.A copy of this order be sent to the jail authorities as well as to the H concerned trial court with record for information and necessary action.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,319,137	Prosecutrix is 19 years old and eloped with cash and ornaments like Mangal sutra etc.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.83/2019 registered at P.S. Lidhoura, District- Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under sections 366, 376 and 506-B of IPC.On the basis of information, the police registered the case and investigated the matter.She went with the present applicant on her own wish.Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and his further custody is not required in this case.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case o f bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.Certified copy as per rules.	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,319,803	Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.08.16 17:53:00 +05'30'Case diary perused.This is first application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 100/2018 registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District - Burhanpur for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 427, 336, 353, 332, 333, 153, 153-A, 120-B, 188, 333 and 440 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.Co-accused Jaheeruddin and Harshit Singh have already been released on anticipatory bail and the case of the applicants are similar with them.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.Learned G.A. opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the bail application.It is directed that if applicants Devanand, Harizuddin and Noor Ahmed Mansuri surrenders and in the event of arrest before the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer or court within a period of 15 days from today in relation with aforementioned Crime No., they shall be released on bail on their depositing Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only) by each of the applicants as personal security and on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ Investigating Officer or the Court.The applicants/accused shall make themselves available for interrogation before a Police Officer as and when required.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.CC as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-	['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,320,447	30.07.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ub 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 20195 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 20191.The The Station House Officer, Natrampalli Police Station, Natrampalli, Vellore District.5/6http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.6 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019ub Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019 30.07.2019This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.210 of 2018, pending investigation before the first respondent police.1/6http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 20192 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019The second respondent, who claims herself to be a Office bearer of a political party, has filed a complaint before the respondent police to the effect that he saw a whats up message on 26.06.2018 sent by the petitioner, which had the effect of defaming the political party and its symbol.He therefore, called the petitioner on his mobile and the petitioner is said to have abused the second respondent and also threatened the second respondent over phone.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the complaint is taken as it is, no offence is made out against the petitioner.The learned counsel submitted that the respondent police has gone ahead and filed a final report without there being any material against the petitioner and therefore, requested this Court to quash the final report filed by the respondent police.The second respondent has been served with notice and his name has also been printed in the cause list and there is no representation for the second 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019 respondent and therefore, this Court is proceeding further to deal with the case on merits.3 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019Even though, the respondent police have initially registered the FIR for an offence under Section 355 of IPC, in the final report they have dropped the said offence.In order to constitute an offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC, the petitioner should have abused the second respondent in or near any public place.In the present case, admittedly, the second respondent is said to have been abused only over phone and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b), has not been made out in this case.Insofar as, the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC is concerned, the petitioner is said to have threatened the defacto complainant over phone.In this case, there was no material collected by the respondent police 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019 to substantiate the offence of Criminal intimidation.Useful reliance in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in P.Palanivel Vs.4 Crl.O.P.No.6383 of 2019This Court is satisfied that the entire Criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of Court and requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.In the result, the FIR in Crime No.210 of 2018 and the proceedings in C.C.No.2335 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirupattur, is hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.2.The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras.	['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
155,322,575	1 13.12.2018 11 Allowed md.And In Re:-The petitioners are some of the persons who have been named in a supplementary charge-sheet in connection with an incident at which a person was killed.The State seeks to make out that though witnesses' statements indicating the involvement of these petitioners had been obtained before the original charge-sheet had been filed, the State focussed 1 2 more on filing the original charge-sheet against the 11 persons who had already been arrested so that such persons would not obtain statutory bail.The State says that the second or supplementary charge-sheet has been filed indicating the involvement of these petitioners and some others.It is the State's contention that while filing the initial charge-sheet, the present petitioners were not given any clean chit.Considering the material against the petitioners, including statements of some of the witnesses as placed by the State, it does not appear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is called for.For a start, the investigation has been completed.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
155,334,028	Heard on the question of admission.Therefore, a direction may be issued to the police that before registering a FIR against him, proper investigation be made.[2] Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if police received any complaint of committing cognizable offence, they are bound to register FIR.	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
85,286,157	S.Jega Jeeva Dhas, having been aggrieved by the order of dismissal issued in G.O.(2D) No.163, Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 9.4.2008 by the Secretary to Government, has filed this writ petition to quash the same with a consequential direction to the first respondent to reinstate and permit him to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005 and also with a further direction to the respondents to release the consequential pensionary benefits.When the matter was taken up on 15.4.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.A perusal of the letters dated 22.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 clearly show that the petitioner has been urging the Registry to list the matter for early disposal.Accordingly, when the matter was listed before this Court on 15.4.2019, no one appeared to represent the case of the petitioner.Since the petitioner in his letter dated 22.11.2017 has repeatedly stated that he is aged about 71 years and the Registry has not listed the matter for a long time, namely, for ten long years, this Court, giving a last opportunity to the petitioner's counsel, directed the Registry to list the matter today.Again, when the matter was taken up today at 11.30 A.M., no one appeared, except the learned Additional Government Pleader forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the respondents.Although this Court perused the documents filed by the petitioner and more importantly the impugned G.O.(2D) No.163, Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 9.4.2008 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service for the proven charges, it could be seen from the records that while the petitioner was serving as Office Superintendent in the office of the District Backward Class Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, the third respondent herein, he was posted as Additional Deputy Tahsildar in the Taluk Office, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.While he was serving in the office of the fourth respondent, he was placed under suspension on 29.4.2005, as he was to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005, thereby he was not permitted to retire from service by an order passed under FR 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules and was retained in service, since there were charges pending against him in T.D.P.Case No.3 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore.Coming to the charge levelled against the petitioner, when the petitioner was employed as Office Superintendent during the period 1999-2000, he is alleged to have collected a sum of Rs.29,650/- from the Travelling Allowance claims of the subordinates, namely, Wardens of the Backward Classeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 hostels, towards small savings agent's commission in order to get the savings certificate numbers and out of the total collecion of Rs.29,650/-, the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.12,325/-.Therefore, based on the recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore.When the matter was pending, the petitioner also came to this Court with W.P.No.38219 of 2004 seeking for early completion of the disciplinary proceedings.This Court, considering the limited prayer, by order dated 29.12.2004, disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents therein to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of eight weeks.However, in view of the voluminous documentary and oral evidence involved in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the Government also filed W.P.M.P.No.35510 of 2005 seeking extension of time.For the reason that a case was registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai with regard to certain allegations against the petitioner pending with the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, he was placed under suspension with effect from 29.4.2005 and consequently he was not allowed to retire from service on 30.4.2005, but retained in service by an order passed under FR 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules till the disposal of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 charges pending against him in T.D.P.Case No.3 of 2004 before the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore.Thereafter, the Government examined the explanation of the delinquent officer and found that the same is not acceptable.Hence, the Government decided to accept the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved.Finally, for the proven charges, the Government decided to impose the punishment under Rule 8(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the petitioner.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after careful examination of the matter with reference to the enquiry report and the petitioner's representations dated 8.12.2004, 28.11.2006, 21.12.2006, 10.9.2007 and 19.11.2007, in its letter No.585/D.C.D-B2/2007-1 dated 19.12.2007 made it clear that the Commission finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.The Commission has also expressed that as the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer is of grave nature, he deserves the highest punishment, namely, dismissal from service.Based on the views expressed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the first respondent hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 passed a final order in G.O.(2D) No.163, Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 9.4.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service for the irregularities committed by him.Challenging the same, the petitioner has come to this Court.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that when allegations were made against the petitioner and also against one another Assistant Accounts Officer, charges were framed against the petitioner and Mr.R.K.Palaniappan, formerly District Backward Class Officer, Thiruvannamalai.Gubendra Babu, the then Assistant Accounts Officer by not even interrogating him in the investigation.But he was cited as one of the witnesses.Even a close look at the charge shows that no act of corruption or act involving criminal intent of any nature has been involved.Therefore, if the irregularity does not involve corruption, the matter need not be referred to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and can be disposed of departmentally.The further averment of the petitioner shows that he is alleged to have violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.However, the initiation of disciplinary action has to be taken under Rule 17(a) or 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules only.While so, the proper procedure in issuing the charge memo in the format as prescribedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 in G.O.Ms.No.124/B/ARC/(P&AR) Department dated 27.2.96 as per Appendix VIII of CCA Rules is not followed.The petitioner also, while challenging the charge of misappropriation of Rs.12,325/-, has denied the collection of any amount directly.Moreover, he has further pleaded that he had not kept any such amount in his custody.Therefore, the question of misappropriating the same does not arise.On this basis, he has further challenged the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the alleged misappropriated amount as vague, since such a finding has been given without actually verifying the records.It is also claimed that when the petitioner has no role to pay in the alleged misconduct, the said aspect has been completely overlooked by both the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.Finally, after the completion of enquiry in T.D.P.Case No.3 of 2004, the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore sent a report to the Government.While the report was under examination, the petitioner came to this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings expeditiously.Since the Commission also expressed its view that the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer is of grave nature, for which he deserves the highest punishment of dismissal from service, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service for the irregularities committed by him.Adding further, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that when there is no complaint made by the petitioner with regard to the procedure followed by the department for obtaining the views from the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore with regard to the charges levelled against him, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the punishment imposed on him is wholly disproportionate or unjustified.This Court also finds substance on the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.When the petitioner was serving as Office Superintendent in the office of the third respondent, he had indulged in certain dealings and collected Rs.29,650/- from the travelling allowance claims, namely, Wardens of Backward Classes hostels, towards small savings agent's commission in order to get the saving certificate numbers.When the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after examining the charges framed against the petitioner, found him guilty, the Government also, before imposing the punishment under Rule 8(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, obtained the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.	['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
85,295,681	Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Consequently, the application filed by the applicant Prakash Chandra Dwivedi is hereby dismissed being infructuous.Remaining applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.186/15 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sidhi for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 342, 506, 327 and 329 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Satyam is a youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.He is a student of Engineer College.Except the offence under Section 327 or 329 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable.Actually, the victim Dibyankdhar Dwivedi did not sustain any grave injury and the police has registered a case of offence under Section 329 of the IPC.In absence of any grave injury, no such crime could be registered.It was a case of quarrel, but to make it grave, the ingredients of Section 327 of the IPC were added in the FIR, whereas remaining offences are bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)	['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
85,306,326	The second party shall pay a sum of Rs.15 Lacs (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) to the first party on the date of completion of construction, in case the marriage of the second daughter of the first party does not take place till that date.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.107/2012 under Sections 454/380/341/120B/34 of the IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave.FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 who contended that he had purchased the second-floor rights from one Smt. Nirmal Saraf.The petitioners were owners of the first floor of the said property.They had sold the second-floor rights to Smt. Nirmal Saraf who in turn sold it to the complainant.It is contended that the complainant was in discussion with the petitioners for the Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 1 of 9 purposes of developing his second floor.Despite having agreed not to obstruct the complainant from raising the construction on the second floor, it is alleged that the petitioners did not permit him to raise construction.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 1 of 9It is contended that the complainant was in possession of one room, kitchen and bathroom on the second floor.Since 2009, it is alleged that he used to regularly visit the second floor of this property.On 27.03.2012 when he visited the property he was shocked to notice that his lock on the second floor had been broken and physical possession had been taken by the petitioners and they had forcibly occupied the second floor, prevented him from going on the second floor, threatened him and directed him to leave.It is contended that in the said property, the complainant had kept some old household goods and one old air conditioner and it was suspected that the petitioners had even removed his goods.Petitioner per contra contends that petitioner was in use and occupation of the said second floor, however, a Settlement Agreement was entered into between the parties on 29.04.2012 wherein it was inter-alia agreed as under: -That the first party will hand over the key of second floor with physically vacant possession of the properly bearing no. 110, Vaishali.Delhi to the second party.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 2 of 9That the second party will withdraw her complaint/case after having receipt the key and possession of the aforesaid second floor of property bearing No.110, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi from the first party.That it is further agreed between the parties that the second party will pay a sum of Rs. 5.00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the first party only after construction starts completion of three days' work and thereafter a sum of Rs. 10,00.000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) would be paid as soon as when linter of the aforesaid second floor is laid, completely.It is further agreed that the second party shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) to the first party one month before the marriage of second daughter of the first party or on completion of second floor, whichever takes place earlier.It is further agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs only) shall be paid by the second party to the first party on completion of the third floor, however, if third floor is not constructed this amount of Rs. 45 Lacs shall not be paid.Even if second floor is not constructed no amount would be payable to the first party.That it is further agreed that alternatively if the entire building is re-constructed from the foundation, Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) shall be paid to the first party at the time of demolition of the property.Rs. 24.00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) would be adjusted against the cost of construction of first floor of the first party, Rs. 10,09,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) would be Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 3 of 9 paid when the superstructure would be completed and Rs. 16,00.000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) would be paid at the time of finishing the interiors.If the second party does not complete the construction within 18 months from the date of demolition, he will pay monthly rent of the rented accommodation hired by the first party for living till the completion of the building.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 3 of 9That it is further agreed that if the second party wishes to sell the second floor with or without construction with roof rights in that event he will first offer to the first party and first party will pay the amount as per the market rate to the second party.That the first party's wife shall withdraw her case which she has filed U/s 138 N.I. Act against the second party in the Court of Ms.Shefali Barnala Tandon, M.M. Rohini Courts, Delhi titled as "Kavita Sehgal vs. Urvashi Khurana & Anr.That the second party also undertakes to compound the case FIR No.107/2012 U/s 454/380/341/120-B/34 IPC against the first party/accused and his wife and he shall also cooperate in quashing of the present case FIR Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 4 of 9 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, if need arises.In case no construction takes place on the second floor, even then the first party shall be entitled to Rs.15 lacs one month before the marriage of the second daughter of the first party.That both the parties undertake to appear before the competent Court of law as and when called to give a requisite statement for compounding / quashing / withdrawal of the proceedings of the cases mentioned above."As per the settlement, petitioner was to hand over the keys of the second floor with peaceful vacant possession to the respondents.Respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs to the petitioners and consented to compound/quash the subject FIR.It is further contended by the petitioners that when the anticipatory bail application was filed by petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 had appeared before the Trial Court and on 09.07.2012, had categorically accepted the Settlement Deed dated 24.09.2012 and had also stated that he had instructed his counsel to move a joint petition for quashing of the subject FIR.The statement reads as under:-"Statement of Sh.Raj Kumar Khurana S/o Sh.On S. A.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 5 of 9Once the plans were sanctioned, constructions were raised and today admittedly, both the second and third floors have been completed.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 7 of 9The conduct of the respondents clearly shows that having availed of the benefit of the settlement, they wish to keep the criminal proceedings alive so as to harass the petitioners.Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 8 of 9Accordingly, FIR No.107/2012 under Sections 454/380/341/120B/34 of the IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.Petitioners shall also be entitled to costs, from respondent Nos. 2 & 3, quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J September 24, 2018 rk Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 9 of 9Crl MC 2199/2013 Page 9 of 9	['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,565,456	1 MCRC-25620-2020 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-25620-2020 (NARESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 1 Jabalpur, Dated : 11-08-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Mr. M.K. Sulakhe, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. U.Agrawal, learned P.L. for the State.This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under section 439 of the Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of a sudden fight, the applicant has been implicated in the aforementioned case.It is further stated that only a fracture on the left arm has been caused by the applicant to the complainant.Learned counsel for the State while opposing the application for grant of bail has submitted that the applicant has caused a grievous hurt to the complainant, which is a non-bailable offence.Admittedly, there is a fracture on the left arm of the complainant.But for the offence U/s.326 of I.P.C., all the other offences are bailable in nature.Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case.Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, Signature Not Verified SAN the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the fact Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.08.11 18:17:39 IST 2 MCRC-25620-2020 that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifity Thousand only) with on solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The Jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the Jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if is, he be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the Jail authorities.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,568,797	Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.Heard Shri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and Shri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3 and also filed a counter affidavit.The present is a habeas corpus writ petition filed on behalf of corpus Rakhi Sharma through her husband Ajay Sharma with the following prayer:"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondent no.2 i.e. Superintendent of Government Women Protection Home, District Allahabad to release the corpus petitioner Rakhi Sharma, who has been detained illegally in the Government Women Protection Home, District Allahabad and set her at liberty.B. Issue any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.C. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."A copy of the marriage certificate in this regard, issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.It appears that subsequently the father of the victim lodged an FIR with the allegation that his minor daughter Rakhi Sharma aged about 16 years was kidnapped by Ajay Sharma.The FIR was registered as case crime no.136 of 2018 under Section 363, 366 IPC.The copy of the FIR has also been annexed as Annnexure-2 to the writ petition.From the record it appears that being aggrieved against the lodging of the FIR, a writ petition being Misc.Bench No.24227 of 2018 Ajay Sharma and another vs State of UP through Principal Secretary, Home and others, in which an order was passed on 27.8.2018 with the direction that petitioners be not taken in custody till the next date of listing and the petitioners were directed to join the investigation which shall be conducted under the supervision of Circle Officer concerned.The Circle Officer was directed to file affidavit as to under what circumstances it is being concluded that the petitioner has committed any offence.The copy of the order dated 27.8.2018 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC which has been annexed as Annexure-4 at page 25 of the writ petition.In the said statement the girl categorically says as under:,s/kk Fkkuk egs'kxat us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd & 04-07-18 dks eSa Hkkxdj fnYyh pyh x;h FkhA 07-30 cts lqcg ls fudyh Fkh Ldwy tkus ds fy,A ghjkxat ogkW esjk Ldwy gS] ogkW igqWpsA igqWpdj VsyhQksu ls vt; 'kekZ ls ckr djds mls cqyk;kA fQj mlds lkFk fnYyh xbZA fnYyh esa 06-07-18 dks larks"kh ekrk ds eafnj] mRreuxj esa eSus vt; ds lkFk 'kknh dj yhA ge muds cqvk ds ;gkW jgrs FksA vt; us esjs lkFk dksbZ xyr dk;Z ugh fd;k vkSj u gh dksbZ tksj tcjnLrh dhA vt; us esjs lkFk dksbZ 'kkjhfjd lEcU/k ugha cuk;kA eSa viuh ethZ ds lkFk vt; ds lkFk x;h FkhA esjs ikik Ldwy esa esjh mez de fy[kok;s gSA okLro esa bl le; esjh mez 19 o"kZ ds yxHkx gSA eSa vius dks 18 o"kZ ls Åij dh le>rh gwW] blfy, ftrsUnz dqekj 'kekZ o /kesZUnz dqekj dk esjs fnYyh tkus esa dksbZ jksy ugha gSA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa budk xyr uke fy[kk fn;k gSA eSa fnYyh viuh ethZ ls x;h FkhA eSa vt; ds lkFk gh jguk pkgrh gwWA esjs ?kj okys eq>s tku ls ekjuk pkgrs gSA From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that it was the girl herself who has taken initiative and called Ajay Sharma on telephone and thereafter solemnized marriage with him.However, the Court has been informed that ignoring the wishes of the victim Rakhi Sharma, the Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh which has no jurisdiction has passed the order dated 1.8.2018, in pursuance of which the victim was sent to Government Women Protection House, Khuldabad, Allahabad where she is presently detained.When the matter was taken up as a fresh case, a detailed order was passed by this Court on 4.12.2018 which reads as under:"The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed on behalf of corpus Smt. Rakhi Sharma through her husband, Ajay Sharma.The corpus Smt. Rakhi Sharma has been illegally detained at Government Women Protection Home, Allahabad, even though she is an adult, her date of birth is 2.5.2002 as the same is evident from the order dated 1.8.2018 and she has solemnized marriage out of her own sweet will without any fear, threat or coercion.Issue notice to respondent no. 3, which shall be served through CJM, concerned.Subsequently, it appears that a supplementary affidavit was filed which is dated 11.12.2018 and along with the said affidavit a certificate of Radiologist of District Hospital, Pratapgarh has been annexed and as per the report of the said Radiologist, the age of the girl is between sixteen to eighteen years.However, in the meantime Shri Mahipal Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.When the case was again taken up earlier, an order was passed on 11.12.2018 by means of which the case was adjourned, however as the corpus was present on the said date she was examined by this Court.The order dated 11.12.2018 is being reproduced herein as under:No sanctity accorded to him at this stage.On the other hand, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in which the report of Radiologist has been annexed, which shows that the age of girl is 16-18 years.On being asked that 'aap ke pita ji ka kya naam hai', she informed the Court that 'mere pita ji ka naam Chhote Lal Sharma hai'.On being asked that 'aap ki kitni umra hai', she informed the Court that 'meri umra 19 saal hai' On being confronted with the entry made in the Scholar's Register and Transfer Certificate with regard to date of birth of the girl which is mentioned as 02.05.2002 she informed the Court that 'mai school me padhi hu lekin meri date of birth pita ji ne peeche likhai hai'.She informed the Court that 'maine Ajay Sharma se shadi kari hai, she next informed the Court that 'maine shadi apni marzi se kari hai bina kisi darr aur dabav ke'.On being asked by the Court that 'apke brother yaha aye hai kya aap milna chahenge unse', she informed the Court that 'nahi'.In view of the statement made by the girl before this Court a case for grant of indulgence has been made out.However, since the counsel of respondent No.3 has made a request for short adjournment, accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day and list this case on 20th December, 2018 by which date the counter affidavit may be filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, if any, failing which the Court may proceed to hear the matter on merits.It is however made clear that no further time shall be given to respondent No.3 to contest the matter."	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,572,718	It was also ordered that fine if realized, a sum of Rs.5.5 crores be paid to the bank in question as compensation.M.B. 10242/14 in Crl.A.916/13 Page 1 of 6M.A. No.17154/2014 was also moved subsequently for issuance of notice to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) for confirming One Time Settlement.M.B. 10242/14 in Crl.A.916/13 Page 2 of 6Charan Das Chhabra who was purportedly presented as guarantor by the appellant to secure the loan was not even alive and appellant Sushil Verma in collusion with S.K. Chawla made someone else to appear as Charan Das Chhabra and dishonestly and fraudulently obtained the credit facilities from the State Bank of Binaker & Jaipur, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi.The property offered as collateral security was Crl.Mukesh Gulati, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Asset Recovery Branch confirming the acceptance of proposal made by the appellant through his daughter Ms.Amrita Verma for a total sum of Rs.6 crores.The bank has accepted and approved the payment terms vide letter dated 13 th November, 2014 which has been accepted by the appellant through her daughter and one of the director of the borrower company Ms. Amrita Verma according to which schedule of deposit will be as Crl.M.B. 10242/14 in Crl.A.916/13 Page 4 of 6 under:-i) He shall not leave Union Territory of Delhi during this period.ii) He shall report to CBI at 11:00 AM on every Wednesday during this period.iii) He shall furnish his address as well as the mobile number to the CBI.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 25, 2014 rs Crl.M.B. 10242/14 in Crl.A.916/13 Page 6 of 6Another application bearing Crl.Notice was sent to SBBJ and respondent-CBI was also directed to verify the settlement.Suspension of sentence was opposed by CBI on the ground that the appellant and his daughter Ms. Amrita Verma were directors of M/s Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Standard Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Mother Dairy Division).On 19th February, 2005, the appellant in collusion with co-accused S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager and J.S. Chaney, a valuer, sought enhancement of credit facilities to the extent of cash credit limit of Rs.75 lacs and bank guarantee limit of Rs.40 lacs and presented Sh.Charan Das Chhabra as guarantor.A property at Ghaziabad, UP was also offered as collateral security.A.916/13 Page 3 of 6 valued by Jagpal Singh Chaney and it was also found that no such property was situated.A.916/13 Page 3 of 6However, as regards, one time settlement between the parties, the same was verified from the bank according to which an OTS between the bank and the borrower has been approved by the Bank's competent authority on 16th October, 2014 for Rs.6 crores.A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for necessary information.	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,577,686	Per Shailendra Shukla :Considered I.A. No.425/2020, which is second application filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant - Mangal Singh S/o Dula Mogiya.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide its judgement dated 31.08.2013 passed in S. T. No.292/2011 as under :-The appellant has been convicted along with two other co- accused persons namely, Dula Mogiya and Bhagwansingh.The prosecution story in short was that on 02.08.2011, appellant along with other co-accused persons had murdered Samrath with weapons and the appellant was wielding lathi.Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that there 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.1322 of 2013 (Mangal Singh vs. State of MP) was previous land dispute between the appellant and the complainant, that Vishnubai (PW-4) who is the only eye-witness has stated that it was co-accused Dula who has caused injury on the head of the deceased with dhariya and there is no allegation against the appellant, that the evidence in relation to the appellant is deficient, that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by sharp objects.It has also been stated that the appellant is in jail since 04.08.2011 and on this ground, suspension of jail sentence has been sought.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the suspension application who states that it is not as if the injuries were caused only with sharp edged weapon but there were lacerated injuries also and further that in the post-mortem report, it has been found that spleen of the deceased was found to be ruptured which could be caused by blow from a blunt object like lathi.Considered rival contention.Perused the record.Vishnubai (PW-4) apart, Mishrilal (PW-5) and Ayodhyabai (PW-6) are other witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the incident.Vishnubai (PW-4) states that Mangalsingh had dealt lathi blow on the deceased.As already stated, spleen of the deceased was also found to be ruptured which could have been caused by blow from blunt object.On due consideration of the aforesaid and after perusal of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.1322 of 2013 (Mangal Singh vs. State of MP) material available on record, application for suspension of jail sentence is not liable to be accepted and I.A. No.425/2020 stands rejected accordingly.List the matter for final hearing in due course.	['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,581,536	A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 2 of 34The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2007, an information was received by SI Kashmiri Lal at 3.37AM vide DD No. 7A, that at factory C- 274 Mayapuri Phase 2, about 3-4 persons had stabbed a person in his stomach.Upon getting this information, SI Kashmiri Lal and Ct.Mukesh went to the place of incident, where they got to know that the injured was removed to DDU hospital.SI Kashmiri Lal left Ct.Mukesh at the place of incident for its safety, and he himself went to DDU hospital.On reaching the hospital, SI Kashmiri Lal found one injured Nagender s/o Dhaneshwar Yadav, r/o C-274 Backside Phase 2 Mayapuri.The doctor declared him 'unfit' for statement.Thereafter, SI Kashmiri Lal went to the surgery ward where he found one Sh Surinder Prashad Mehto PW12 and got his statement recorded.In his statement, he stated that he has been living at his given address for the last two and a half years, and he works as a helper at C-274 Mayapuri.He stated that he, along with Nagender and Rupender, used to do Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 3 of 34 their duty from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the factory.On the intervening night of 10/11.09.2007, at about 02:30 a.m., some people started to bang the gates of the factory and when the gates were opened, four persons armed with weapons barged inside.Among these people, one was tall and the rest were of average height, between the age bracket of 25-30 years.They came inside and threatened the victim, SP Mehta, Rupinder to switch off the machine, to which they agreed.They further threatened the victims to not make noise or raise an alarm, else they will be killed.Two of the boys kept standing inside and the other two boys removed Aluminium slabs in an auto, stationed outside the factory.When Nagender protested, one of the boys stabbed him in his stomach and injured him.Thereafter, the boys fled from the scene after bolting the doors of the said premises from outside.After sometime, the gate was got opened somehow and Surinder Prashad Mehto went out and informed the owner about the incident.Virender Singh.Insp Virender Singh went to the place of incident and prepared a rough site plan at the instance of the complainant, and the crime team was also summoned.The blood stained earth control was lifted and sealed and seized.Upon reaching DDU hospital, the IO/ Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 4 of 34 Insp.Virender Singh came to know that the injured Nagender was declared dead.Pursuant to this, Section 396 IPC was also added.Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 13.09.2007 at the DDU hospital and the sealed parcels were got deposited with the MHC(M) by the autopsy surgeon.Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 4 of 34During further investigation, upon getting an information through a secret informer, Insp.Virender Singh along with the police party reached Daya Basti railway station on 17.09.2007, and apprehended and arrested the accused Fayaz Ahmed and Amit Chauhan.On their disclosure statements, the other accused persons Raj Kumar and Mohd. Illiyas were apprehended near Delhi Cantt.Railway Station.On the disclosure statement of the accused persons, the case property- Aluminum Slabs were got recovered from the jhuggi of the accused Kalu, which were sealed in different parcels.The accused Kalu, Nadeem and Afsar Ali were thereafter arrested, as they were keeping the looted property.She further submitted that the place of incident is not in dispute, and even the recovery of stolen articles was affected at the instance of the accused persons.The case of the prosecution is that on the day of incident the appellants along with their associate committed robbery at the factory premises of PW3 and at that time, they were armed with deadly weapons.It is alleged against them that at the time of robbery, when they faced resistance from the deceased Nagender, he was stabbed in the abdomen.On his statement FIR was registered.In his statement, PW12 stated that in September 2007, he was working in a factory at Maya Puri.One Nagender and Rupender were also working there.They are strangers to him.He has no reason to falsely implicate the accused, and let the real culprits get away.The other eye witness in the present case is PW9 Ravinder Kumar Yadav, who deposed that around two and a half or three years ago, he was working in a factory at Mayapuri.On the day of incident, he was deputed on duty from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. along with PW12 and Nagender (deceased).Both of them were also present in the factory and working with him.He further stated that at about 3 a.m., when they were working, the gate of the factory was closed but not bolted.Suddenly, about 10 persons forcibly came into the factory and they started giving beatings to them.He further stated that one of them was having a sword and the others were having wooden sticks and iron rods.One of the accused persons was also in possession of a knife.Nagender sustained injury with knife in his stomach caused by the assailants.PW9 also stated the accused persons had robbed the aluminum slabs and fled from the spot after bolting the gate of the factory from outside.Some watchman of the area opened the gate from outside.They informed Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 13 of 34 the owner of the factory who came there and took Nagender to hospital.The other key witness in the present case is Suresh Bahadur (PW13).He deposed that he was employed as a watchman in the industrial area of Mayapuri- the place of incident, and his shift for his duty was from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. On the said night, PW13 was patrolling in the street where he had an encounter with some boys and upon enquiring about their identity, one of them assaulted PW13 by using a sword, due to which PW13 sustained injury on his right shoulder.Thereafter PW13 ran away from the said street.After some time he went to the place of incident where he saw the owner of the factory and his son present there and one of the labour was also present in an injured state.The injured labour was removed to DDU hospital.As per the testimonies of PW9 and PW12, it is duly established that the appellants -Fayaz Ahmed, Amit Chauhan and Raj Kumar were present at the spot on the day of incident and they were armed with deadly weapons and had assaulted PW9 and PW12, and the deceased.The accused persons after entering the said premises of the factory extended threats to PW9, PW12 and the deceased Nagender to not raise an alarm and started to commit robbery of the aluminum slabs.It is further established that upon the protest of Nagender to the robbing of the aluminum slabs from the place of incident, he was stabbed in his stomach/abdomen and he thereafter succumbed to the injury.The testimonies of the above witnesses also duly established their presence at the spot at the time of commission of the offence.Therefore, the above testimonies establish the commission of robbery and murder.PW17 Dr. L.C. Gupta was posted at DDU hospital along with Dr. Anita Jha who had conducted the Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased.PW17 deposed that the deceased was brought to the casualty of the hospital at about 03:50 a.m. on 11.09.2007 in a conscious and an oriented state.Stitched incised wound was present in midline of abdomen extending from Xiphisternum to pubic symphysis.It was 27cm in length and having 16 black colour stitches and 4 tension sutures.It was surgically made incised wound which was stitched layer by layer.On opening of the abdomen and chest, incised wound of eleptical shape was found vertically in inferior vena cava at just below the side of sub diphagragmatic area where a gauge piece packing was also present with local collection of blood and blood clot.Head-brain matter was pale and its vessels were dilated and engorged.Abdomen- abdominal cavity was full with blood and blood clots.Pertinently, the offence took place in the dead of the night.As per the testimony of PW18, he stated that he was a tea vendor and a resident of Village Gothiya, Post Office Mallipur, District Gonda, U.P. One day, when he was present at his shop, Delhi police and local police of PS Mankapur, District Gonda came to his shop along with one Raj Kumar, resident of village Gothiya.PW6/A and sketch Ex.We may also observe that PW-10 Const.Bali Ram Singh Kushwa is an independent witness.He is not a member of the Delhi Police force, and was, therefore, completely detached from the case.His testimony is entitled to credence like that of any independent public witness.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 24 of 34So far as the recovery of knife on the disclosure of the accused Amit Chauhan and the sword at the instance of Fayaz Ahmad is concerned, in our view, the same has been duly established.As per the statement of PW21 Ct.PW21 along with PW26, PW19, PW27, PW24 and accused Amit Chauhan went to Rewari Railway line near jhuggi.The accused, Amit Chauhan had led PW21 and other police officials to the railway line and got one knife recovered after digging the land.IO seized the recovered knife (vide Ex.PW20/A) and also prepared a sketch of the knife and got it sealed in a parcel.Thereafter, the IO deposited the case property with MHC(M) after they returned to the police station.PW24 stated that he, along with Faiyaz and Illiyas and other police officials went to the Rewari railway line.The accused Faiyaz Ahmad got recovered one sword from a pit which was near the Rewari railway line.The said sword was converted into pullanda after due measurement and was seized by the IO.The seizure memo of the sword is Ex.PW24/C. The sealed articles which was containing one sword was shown to the witness who identified the same to be recovered at the instance of accused Fayaz Ahmad vide Ex.The above testimonies of the prosecution witnesses duly establishes that the knives and the sword used by the appellants to commit robbery, and the knife used to commit the offence of murder were recovered at the instance of the accused persons, further proving the prosecution's case.So far as the recovery of stolen articles is concerned, PW24 HC Vishal deposed that on 17.09.2007, he was posted at PS Mayapuri, and had joined the investigation along with Insp.Virender, SI Kashmiri Lal, HC Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 25 of 34 Rohtash, HC Bhona Ram, Const Rajender, Const Ram Chander and Const Naresh.Upon getting secret information from a secret informer, Insp.Virender was informed that the suspects of this case would be available at railway station Daya Basti.Pursuant to this, Insp.Virender briefed them and they went to the police station.Two boys were apprehended.On interrogating them, their names were revealed as Fayaz Ahmed and Amit Chauhan.They both further informed Insp.Virender that two of their associates could be apprehended from Delhi Cantonment Railway Station.So far as the recovery of clothes from accused Raj Kumar is concerned, PW6-ASI Harpal Singh deposed that on 22.09.2007, accused Raj Kumar led the police party towards bushes situated near railway line, Delhi Cantonment and got recovered his T-shirt and pant, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P.S. TEJI, J.The present appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Fayaz Ahmed (Crl.A. 1587/2013), Raj Kumar (Crl.A. 1645/2013) and Amit Chauhan (Crl.A. 1596/2013) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the common judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2013 vide which, they have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/392 read with Section 34 IPC and section 397 I.P.C., and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Vide common order on sentence dated 30.09.2013, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of fine, they have been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 2 of 34 Section 302/34 I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.The owner and his son reached the place of incident and Joginder Singh made a call at no.100 and injured Nagender was removed to DDU hospital in a car.Surinder Prashad Mehto further stated that he can identify the said four boys, if produced before him.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 3 of 34The said statement of Surinder Prashad Mehto was endorsed and SI Kashmiri Lal prepared a rukka vide Ex. PW12/A and the FIR u/s 394/397 IPC was registered vide Ex. PW4/B. The case was registered and was assigned to Insp.In the further course of investigation, the accused persons Fayaz Ahmed and Mohd. Illiyas got the weapons of offence;(i) sword Ex.PW24/C; (ii) Iron rod Ex.PW24/D recovered.On 19.09.2007, accused Amit Chauhan led the police party and got the weapon of offence-a knife Ex.PW20/A recovered.A police party was formed headed by ASI Harpal Singh, and they went to the village of the accused person Raj Kumar r/o Village Gothia, Post Manakpur, Distt.Gonda, UP and the accused Raj Kumar led the police party and got recovered the knife ExPW6/A, which was used in the commission of dacoity.Accused Raj Kumar led the police party on 22.09.2007, and got Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 5 of 34 recovered blood stained clothes (Ex.PW6/D) which he was wearing on the date of incident.He also got recovered two rickshaws/handcarts Ex.PW6/E in presence of ASI Harpal Singh.An application was moved by SI Kashmiri Lal on 22.09.2007 to conduct the TIP of the accused persons.The IO moved an application for TIP qua accused Raj Kumar.Accused Fayaz Ahmed and Raj Kumar, however, refused to participate in the TIP.The seized parcels were sent to FSL Rohini.Accused Habiba, during the course of investigation, could not be traced.NBWs were issued against him, which could not be executed.Charge Sheet for the offence u/s 396/397 IPC was filed thereafter.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 5 of 347. Charge under section 412, 396 and 397 IPC, and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Accused persons did not examine any defence witness.On appreciation of evidence and material brought on record, the trial court convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 6 of 34 392/34 and 397 IPC, and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.Learned counsel has argued that as per the deposition of PW12, Ravinder was not present at the time of the incident.Mr. Dandapani has argued that PW13 had deposed that he had not seen the faces of the accused persons, thus the presence of accused Amit Chauhan is not proved.Learned counsel further submitted that conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is not made out for the reasons that there is no evidence to prove as to which of the accused gave the fatal knife injury to the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant- Raj Kumar has argued that the manner of arrest of the accused and the recovery of knife & clothes of accused Raj Kumar are suspect, inasmuch, as, it is alleged that the clothes were recovered from Delhi, but as per seizure memo ExPW 6/D, the same were recovered from a village.The recovery of stolen articles is also in doubt, as there are contradictions regarding the vehicle used to carry the same; the persons occupying the vehicle, and; its place of recovery.As per the FSL report, no reaction of any blood was found on the clothes of the appellant.He further submitted that PW26 said that he did not enter the jhuggi from where the recovery of alleged articles was effected.Even it has not been explained why PW3-son of the owner of the factory did not speak about the recovery from the jhuggi.He submits that accused Mohd. Illyas and Kallu have been acquitted, and the present appellant is similarly placed as accused Mohd. Illyas.Learned counsel argued that there is sufficient evidence in the form of testimony of public witnesses which duly proves the case of the prosecution that, it was the appellants who committed robbery in the premises of PW3 and, during the said robbery, they committed the murder of the deceased.Learned counsel argued that it is also established that at the time of robbery, the appellants were armed with deadly weapon i.e. sword/knives and they used the same at the time of robbery.His duty hours were from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. At about 02:30 a.m., three appellant's and Mohd. Illiyas (acquitted) entered in the factory having knives and swords in their hands.PW12 identified all the appellants in the Court as the robbers.The accused persons got the machines switched off, and thereafter two of them started beating the victims and other two accused started loading the slabs of aluminum in a cart.Accused persons threatened to kill PW12, if he raised alarm.His associate Nagender tried to stop the accused persons from committing the robbery, but the accused persons assaulted him in his stomach with a knife.The accused persons thereafter fled from the spot along with the robbed articles, and bolted the gate of the factory from outside.Thereafter, they raised alarm and the watchman PW13 of the area opened the door from outside.PW12 informed his owner on telephone and police was called and the police came at the Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 11 of 34 factory.Nagender was taken to DDU hospital and PW12 also went there.His statement Ex.PW12/A was recorded.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 11 of 34In his cross-examination, PW12 has stated that Suresh Bahadur was the watchman at that time.He admitted that the factory used to be operational 24 hours.He stated that two of the four accused persons were armed with knives and swords.He could not say as to who was having the knife, and who was having the sword.He was near the machine when Nagender was assaulted by the accused persons.There was only one cart on which the aluminium slabs were kept.He denied that the accused persons were earlier working in the same factory.He further stated that he had seen the accused persons in Tihar jail after the incident.He denied that the police had shown him the accused persons in the police station before he went to Tihar jail.He denied that on that night they had deliberately left the factory gate open or that they themselves got the factory robbed, or that when Nagender opposed, they had attacked him with knife.Though, PW12 stated that the police officials read over the facts of the case and told him to depose as per his wishes, but he clarified that he had given his statement as per the incident and the police officials merely refreshed his memory.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the testimony of PW12 is not reliable for the reasons that whatever he deposed before the trial court was stated to him by the police officials, and he even identified the accused persons at the pointing out of the police officials.Therefore, the testimony of PW12 is not reliable with regard to taking place of occurrence and the identity of the appellants.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 12 of 34We do not find any force in this contention of the appellants.Though, it is apparent that PW12 stated that he was told the facts of the case and accused persons were shown to him outside the court before his testimony was recorded by the trial court, but he clarified that he deposed exactly as the incident had happened, and the police officials merely refreshed his memory.PW12 did not know the accused from before.This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and during cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, he admitted having stated to the police that the tall boy was having sword in his hand, while the shorter boys were having knives.He admitted that two boys came inside the factory and started picking up the aluminium slabs.He identified the appellants as the same persons who came to the factory on the fateful night, assaulted them, stabbed Nagender and stole the aluminium slabs.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 13 of 34During cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, PW9 stated that one of the accused was having sword and three were having knives.The assailants remained in the factory for about 10-15 minutes.He denied that he identified the accused persons on the asking of the APP for the State.He clarified that he identified the accused persons of his own.He denied that police told him that the accused persons were the assailants.He stated that he identified the accused persons in the police station as the assailants and robbers.He denied that he himself and Surender had assaulted Nagender or that they had stolen goods from the factory, or that because of this, they did not inform the police.He admitted that Nagender was alive till the time the door was opened by the watchman.He denied that the accused persons were not the same persons who had assaulted them on that day, stabbed Nagender and robbed the factory.Learned counsel for the appellants have raised doubt on the testimony of PW9 also.They have argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW9 regarding (i) the robbers being 10- as stated by him in his Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 14 of 34 examination-in-chief; (ii) non-identification of the appellants, and; (iii) no specific role attributed to each of them.It is further submitted that the testimony of PW9 is not reliable, as he identified the appellants on a leading question asked by the Prosecutor which was not allowed.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 14 of 34To deal with these contentions, we have gone through the entire testimony of PW9 and we are of the view that, though there are certain contradictions in his testimony, but the same have been clarified by him during the course of his cross-examination.During cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, PW9 stated that four robbers came inside the factory on the day of the incident.Merely because PW-9 had stated at one stage, that there were ten persons, and had stated subsequently that there were only four persons who came to commit the robbery, is no reason to disbelieve his statement qua the accused.The incident took place in the dead of the night and in the commotion, the said witness may not have correctly assessed the number of persons who had come to commit the robbery.PW9 also stated that one was having sword, while the other three were having knives in their hand.He specifically stated that the accused persons assaulted them and stabbed Nagender in his stomach with a knife.He also stated that the accused persons committed the robbery of aluminium slabs from the factory.He identified all the accused persons in the Court.Though, it is apparent that he had identified the accused persons on the asking of a question by the learned APP, at the same time, he stated "I did not identify the accused persons only because they were pointed out by Ld. Addl.I can identify them myself." It is important to note that the Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 15 of 34 testimony of PW9 was recorded on 01.12.2010 i.e., 3 years and 3 months after the date of the incident.It was natural for his memory to fade.However, on being pointed out by the Ld. APP, his memory got recalled and he confidently and categorically identified the accused.This statement of PW9 shows the truthfulness and reliability of the witness, which clearly established the identity of the accused persons and there is no force in the contention of the appellants that PW9 identified the appellants only on a leading question put by the APP.He was treated surgically and finally declared dead at 08:45am on the same day.On examination of the deceased, the following ante-mortem injuries were noticed:i. Stitched dissected wound of 5cm length, having three black coloured thread stitched at its midline of hand and on further dissection underneath sub scalp and sub periostel hematoma was detected out in an area of 7cmX2cm.It was reddish in colour.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 17 of 34Incised stitched wound of elliptical shape with three stitches present at right side sub costal area just above umbilicus and 2cm lateral to the midline.Dried blood was present over it.He proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW17/A. PW17 in his cross-examination also deposed that even if he was treated at the site of incident immediately after the infliction of injury, he may or may not have survived as in this case major blood vessels had been injured and the wound was quite big which was sufficient to drain out the whole blood of the body within a few minutes.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 18 of 34From the testimony of PW17 and the postmortem report Ex.The appellant Amit Chauhan was identified by the public witness PW9 during TIP proceedings, but accused Raj Kumar and Fayaz Ahmad refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.It is specifically deposed by PW9 and PW12 that they had seen these two accused in the police station and identified them to be the culprits.Even during their testimony before the trial court, they identified all the appellants as the robbers and perpetrators of the crime.We are of the opinion that the submission that the accused persons were identified for the first time in the Court is without any basis and of no consequence.The next contention of the appellants is that recovery of stolen articles alone is not sufficient to base the conviction.It is true that conviction of an accused cannot be made solely on the recovery of stolen articles, and the same is required to be further corroborated by other evidence.In the instant Crl.In the commotion- when the accused came with arms, the actual assailant may not have been seen while inflicting the injury.That does not mean that all the accused- who were categorically identified by the eye-witness viz. PW9 and PW12, can get away.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 20 of 34So far as the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Raj Kumar is concerned, PW10 Const Bali Ram Singh Kushwa- who at the relevant time was posted in PS Mankapur, District Gonda, UP, deposed that on 21.09.2007, he had joined the investigation with one ASI of Delhi Police along with SO Shishupal Singh.PW10 further stated that the accused Raj Kumar was in the custody of SO.PW10 along with Shishupal Singh, Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 21 of 34 accused Raj Kumar and other police officials went to village Gothia, Kalainia, PS Mankapur.SO Shishupal was joined by one Nanku as a public witness in the investigation.On reaching the spot, accused Raj Kumar led PW10 and other police officials to a kacha house which was situated opposite his house.Accused Raj Kumar then got recovered one knife from the kacha house which was kept on a wooden shelf.In the cross examination of PW10, he deposed that accused Raj Kumar voluntarily led PW10 and the police staff to the kacha house and took out the knife from the wooden shelf.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 21 of 34PW18-Nanku Prasad Gupta is the public witness to the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Raj Kumar.He identified his signatures on the documents Ex.PW6/A (seizure memo of knife) and Ex.PW6/C (sketch of knife).This part of the testimony of PW18 duly establishes the recovery of knife Ex.P4 at the instance of the accused Raj Kumar inasmuch, as, PW18 admitted that accused Raj Kumar was brought to Village Gothiya, Gonda by Delhi Police; local police was also present; and he signed the seizure memo Ex.PW24 and the police party along with the two accused persons went to Delhi Cantonment railway station and, at the instance of accused Fayaz Ahmad and Amit Chauhan, the other two accused persons were apprehended.On interrogation they revealed their names as Raj Kumar and Mohd. Illiyas.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 25 of 34PW24 further deposed that he again joined the investigation on 18.09.2007 and took all the four accused persons to Jhuggi No.B-1009, Kanchan Basti, near Rewari Railway Line.On reaching there, all the four accused persons entered the said jhuggi where the articles were lying and informed the IO that the robbed articles were kept there.The articles kept there were 42-43 aluminum slabs, one bag containing brake shoes and one bag containing aluminum dye in fish shape.There were about 360 brake shoes in number and the dye of the fist shape were 750 in number after counting.While the counting was done, a crowd of 5-6 people had assembled outside the jhuggi.The I.O., after getting this knowledge given to him by one of the Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 26 of 34 accused persons, apprehended the person who had bought the articles from them along with two other persons.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 26 of 34The statement of PW-24 that no vehicle was used to recover the property is a minor abrasion and does not go to the root of the matter.The fact remains that the recovery had been affected of the stolen articles which were a large number of aluminium slabs, aluminium brake shoes and aluminium small fans.Virender Singh also deposed that after the arrest of the accused persons, on 18.09.2007, accused persons took the police party to Jhuggi area, near Rewari Railway line in the area of PS Mayapuri and pointed towards a jhuggi and from that jhuggi, at their instance, the case property i.e. 43 aluminium plates, 327 aluminium brake shoes and 755 aluminium small fans were recovered and the same were seized.It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-3 i.e. the son of the owner of the property went to the jhuggi for the purpose of recovery.It is evident from his statement that he identified the recovered articles at the police station.Therefore, he has rightly not spoken of the recovery of the articles at the jhuggi.PW26-SI Kashmiri Lal corroborated the testimony of PW30 to the effect that recovery of stolen articles was affected at the instance of the accused persons.The contention that, merely because PW-26 has not stated that he entered the jhuggi from where the recovery of articles was affected, Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 27 of 34 is neither here nor there.It was not essential for every member of the police party to enter the jhuggi at the same time.The I.O. PW30- Insp.Virender Singh along with SI Kashmiri Lal, HC Vishal, HC Rohtash, Ct.Rajinder, Ct.Ram Chander and Ct.Naresh of the police party went to the jhuggi with the four accused where the articles were identified by the accused and recovered by the police party.There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 27 of 34We do not agree with this submission of learned counsel for the appellant Raj Kumar that section 27 of the Evidence Act is not attracted, since the police was aware of the jhuggi.Being aware of the location of the jhuggi is one thing, and being aware of what is kept inside the jhuggi is a different thing.The recovered articles are a large number of aluminium slabs, aluminium brake shoes and aluminium small fans, which could not have been taken and planted in the jhuggi by the police without the same being discovered.PW6/D. He also got recovered two cycle rickshaws from near Suachalaya Sabzi Mandi, Khazan Basti which were used in the commission of offence for carrying the luggage and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/C.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 28 of 34On this aspect, the testimony of PW-6 is not believable for several reasons.Firstly, Ex. PW-6/D - the seizure memo of clothes of the accused Raj Kumar shows that the recovery was made from village Gothiya, Gonda.However, PW-6 says that the said recovery was from the bushes situated near railway line in Delhi Cantonment.Secondly, there is no report by the FSL that the blood group of the blood found on the recovered clothes was that of the deceased.Pertinently, accused Raj Kumar and Fayaz Ahmed did not participate in the TIP proceedings on the ground that they were already shown to the witnesses.They have not probabilised this justification.The fact remains that both the accused were duly identified by the eye witnesses (PW9 and PW12) during their testimony as robbers and assailants.We may reproduce the relevant extract from the testimony of PW-9 on this aspect:".... .... It is wrong to suggest that I have identified the accused persons as the assailants of that night only at the asking of Ld. Addl.It is correct that Addl.PP had pointed out the accused persons to me before asking whether they are the same persons or not.Court Question: Is it correct that you had identified the accused persons as the assailants only because they were pointed out to you by Ld. Addl.PP or do you identify them yourself?A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 29 of 34I did not identify the accused persons only because they were pointed out by Ld. Addl.I can identify them myself.After the incident I had seen the accused persons in the police station also.They were in custody of police at that time.It is wrong to suggest that police had told me that they were the assailants.I was called in the police station for my statement.It is wrong to suggest that I had seen the accused persons in the police station on the day when my statement u/s. 161 Cr PC Mark X was recorded by the police.I was called in the police station after two days of incident.Only my permanent address was taken by police on that day when I was called in the police station and that day I had seen the accused persons in police station.Police had asked me whether the persons in custody of police were actually the assailants or not and I had identified them i.e. the accused persons as the assailants and robbers.What had happened in Tihar Jail?Many persons were made to stand in one line and out of those persons I had identified the accused persons ... ...".The testimony of PW-9 is completely natural and believable.There was no reason for him to falsely implicate these accused persons.He did not know them from before.In view of the identification and attribution of role of the accused by PW9 and PW12, and the refusal by these accused to join the TIP proceedings, in our view, an adverse inference can and should be drawn against these accused.Their refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings is a pointer to their guilt in the commission of the offence.accused Mohd. Illyas who has already been acquitted by the trial court.We do not find any force in this contention of the accused Fayaz for the reason that PW12-Surender Prasad Mehto and PW9-Ravinder Kumar duly identified the accused Fayaz as one of the robbers and the assailants in the Court.Unlike Mohd. Illiyas, the appellant Fayaz Ahmed did not participate in the TIP proceedings.But PW-13 is not a witness to the commission of the offence inside the factory premises.He was a chawkidar outside the factory.PW9 and PW12 have duly identified the appellants as the robbers, and they have deposed that they have assaulted the deceased Nagender in his stomach, which resulted into his death.The last contention of the counsel for the appellants is that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out and, at the most, a case under Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out as there was no intention of the appellants to commit the murder.The eye witnesses (PW9 & PW12) have specifically deposed against the appellants that on the day of the incident, they all were armed with deadly weapons i.e. one was armed with a sword and other accused persons were armed with knives.PW17/A of the deceased, the deceased had sustained three incised wounds on his body and the severity of the blow caused to his abdomen was such that it resulted into Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 32 of 34 not only the cutting of the abdomen area, but perforation of inferior vena cava.The measurement of the said wound was 27 cm in length.PW17- who conducted the postmortem specifically stated that the patient may or may not have survived, as in the present case, major blood vessel had been injured and the wound was quite big which was sufficient to drain out the whole blood of the body within a few minutes.So, in these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants had the intention and knowledge in committing murder of the deceased, and they cannot seek resort to Section 304 IPC.The prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellants that they committed the robbery, and when they were resisted by the deceased, they have committed the murder of the deceased.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 32 of 34In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.The prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellants that they have committed the robbery in the factory premises of PW3 on the day of the incident.The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased.It has also been established beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of robbery, the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and they used the same while committing the robbery, so as to cover the case within the four corners of Sections 302/392/34 IPC, 397 IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The appellants have failed to make out any case in support of their appeals.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 33 of 34Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court are upheld as we find no illegality or infirmity in the same.The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby sustained.The instant appeals are accordingly dismissed.(P.S. TEJI) JUDGE (VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE JULY 16, 2018 Crl.A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 34 of 34A.1587, 1596 & 1645 of 2013 Page 34 of 34	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,509,071	DATE : MARCH 29, 2019 P.C.:1. Heard.The learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1 and seeks time to take instructions.2. Perused the complaint.It appears that Respondent No.2 herein was an officer in the Central Bank of India and a departmental inquiry was initiated against Respondent No.2 for the allegation that he had misappropriated certain public funds from the said Bank.The Complainant had filed a Misc.Private Complaint in Court No.8, Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai under the provisions of Section 8(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 ::: 2 10- Apeal 466 of 2019Section 14 (1) (2) of the Protection of Civil Rights, 1955 andunder Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.The Complaint waslodged against the office bearers of the Central Bank of India i.e.::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 :::They had engaged advocates to espouse theircause.It is submitted,across the bar that the present complaint filed before theMagistrate was withdrawn and the same complaint was filedbefore the Special Court.That there was multiplicity of litigation.The Special Court by an order dated 12 th December, 2018had allowed the SCST Misc.Application and has issued processagainst Respondent Nos.1 to 5 i.e. the present Appellants for theoffences punishable under Section 14(1) (2) of the Protection ofCivil Rights, 1955 and under section 3(1) (ix) r.w.Taking into consideration the facts of the case, theAppellants herein deserve to be protected by way of interim relief.::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 :::3 10- Apeal 466 of 2019Hence, there shall be an interim relief in terms of prayerclause (c).[SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]V.A. Tikam::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 01:39:51 :::	['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,511,373	On such basis, the second order of externment Pr dt.08.04.2009 was also quashed by the Commissioner.In case No.35/2013, he was simply made to fill a bond.h It is further submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in ig Crime No.797/2014 under section 353 of IPC and Section 4 (1) of the H Gambling Act. Therefore, only four cases were pending against the petitioner when S.P. had sent a proposal and none of them had resulted in conviction.Therefore, on the same analogy on which Commissioner Gwalior Division Gwalior had allowed the appeal on 08.06.2009, the petitioner is entitled to be exonerated.	['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,519,636	The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 157 of 2013 under Sections 494, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, District Aligarh.	['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,465,224	Thangavelu (P.W.1) and Thiru.Balaraman (P.W.2), who are working asConductor and Driver, respectively, of a bus bearing Registration No.PY-019798 plying between Pondicherry and Thirupathi, operated by PondicherryTourist Development Corporation, is stated, in brief, as follows:The bus bearing Registration No.After abreak of 10 minutes for tea at Vandavasi, it proceeded to Pondicherry.Withinten minutes when the bus was nearing Maruthuvambadi Cross Road, the accused,who were standing near the Conductor(P.W.1), assaulted him (P.W.1).Thepassengers screamed loudly.The Driver (P.W.2) switched on the light,questioned the assault by the accused and stopped the vehicle.Immediately,the accused attacked the Driver (P.W.2) by using knives and snatched away ablue colour leather cash bag (M.O.1) from P.W.1, containing the collection ofthe bus fare; took a brown colour rexin bag (M.O.2), containing one whiteshirt (M.O.3), one blue colour checked lungi (M.O.4), a small towel (M.O.5)and the identity card (M.O.6) of the Conductor and fled away on seeing a lorrycoming from the opposite direction, in which one Ameed of Vandavasi Town, afruit merchant, was travelling.The said Ameed (P.W.5) shifted the Conductor(P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) in the said lorry to Vandavasi Bus Stand, fromwhere P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, by apolice constable Ganesan (P.W.6), who was on beat duty at Vandavasi bus stand.Both the Conductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) were admitted in theGovernment Hospital, Vandavasi by Dr.I.Ramalingam (P.W.11) at 3.15 a.m. on21.1.1994 and P.W.11 issued Accident Registers Exs.P15 and 16 recording theinjuries on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.In the GovernmentHospital, Vandavasi, P.W.1 gave a statement about the occurrence (Ex.P.1) atabout 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994, and the same was recorded by a Police ConstableT.L.Paulraj (P.W.13), based on which P.W.13 registered a First InformationReport (Ex.P.19).After giving first aid in the Government Hospital,Vandavasi, P.Ws.1 and 2 were referred to the General Hospital, Pondic herry,for further management and treatment.Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 were admittedin the General Hospital, Pondicherry, in the casualty ward by Dr.P.Muthayan(P.W.12), who issued the Medicolegal Examination Reports, marked as Exs.P.17and 18 with respect to the wounds found on the Conductor (P. W.1) and theDriver (P.W.2).In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police at Vandavasi, K.R. Natesan(P.W.14) undertook investigation on the FIR (Ex.P.19), went to the scene ofoccurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a Rough Sketch(Ex.P.20) in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer(P.W.7), ofIllangadu Village.As per Ex.(i) one pair of rubber sandal chappal (M.O.16);(ii) a rose colour turki towel with blue colour stripes (M.O.17);(iii) trip sheet from 1.1.1994 to 20.1.1994 with respect to PY-01-979 8(M.O.18); and(iv) a ticket book bearing tickets containing Serial Numbers 793201 to 793600wherein the tickets were used upto Serial Number 793566 (M. O.19).An investigation team (party sakitham) lead by P.W.14 and accompanied byP.W.7, who is familiar in and around Vandavasi, went in search of the accusedto apprehend them.When the investigation team was moving towardsVandavasi-Tindivanam Road, after enquiring ten persons, they came across asuspicious person by name Balaji (A1) near Industrial Training Institute atPonnur Road at about 3.00 p.m, and as he was attempting to move away, P.W.14interrogated him.The said Balaji (A1) gave a confession statement (admitted portion inthe confession statement was marked as Ex.P.22) in the presence of P.W.7.Based on the confession statement Ex.P.22, P.W.14 proceeded to the lands ownedby one Veerasami, which is near the place of occurrence and recovered thefollowing material objects under a mahazar (Ex.P6) in the presence of P.W.7:-(i)a black colour leather cash bag (M.O.1);(ii)a rexin bag (M.O.2);(iii)identity card of the Conductor (M.O.6); and(iv) four pattaknives (M.Os.10 to 13);Accordingly, on reachingKancheepuram bus stand, P.W.14 found A2, A3 and A4, namely, Balaji @ Mohan,Dhana @ Dhanasekaran and Sudha @ Sudhakaran waiting for the said Balaji (A1)near a tender coconut shop.P.W.14, during the searchrecovered the following material objects under a Mahazar (Ex.P11) in thepresence of P.W.7:-(i)Rs.565/- (M.O.22 series) (100 rupees currency note - 5 numbers, 20 rupeesnote - 1 number, 10 rupees note - 2 & 5 rupees note - 5 numbers); and(ii) and a ticket No.793528 (M.O.23) from A2;(iii) Rs.570/- (M.O.24 series) (100 rupees note - 5 numbers, 20 rupees note -2 numbers & 5 rupees note - six numbers); and(iv)a ticket No.793529 (M.O.25) from A3;(v) Rs.560/- (M.O.26 series) (100 rupees note - 3 numbers, 50 rupees note - 4numbers, 20 rupees note - 1 number & 5 rupees note - 8 numbers); andA2 and A3 gave confession statements to P.W.14 and the admittedportion in the confession statements were marked as Exs.P23 and 24respectively.Based on the confession statement of A2, P.W.14 seized achecked lungi (M.O.4) under a mahazar Ex.P.10 in the presence of P. W.7 andbased on the confession statement of A3, P.W.14 seized a white shirt (M.O.3)from A3 under a Mahazar (Ex.P.W.14 took further investigation into the matter, examined thewitnesses and filed a final report against the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 392, 397, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, who committed the case to the learnedAssistant Sessions Judge, Arani.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani, framed chargesagainst A1 to A4 under Section 392 I.P.C. for the robbery of Rs.3,000/-;under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. for having caused grievous injuries on theConductor (P.W.1) and the Driver (P.W.2) by using deadly weapons (M.Os.10 to13) while committing the said robbery; under Section 3 26 I.P.C. for havingcaused grievous hurt by cutting the Conductor ( P.W.1) with a pattaknife onhis right eye-brow, right forehead, both left and right arms, right fore armand right little finger and for having caused grievous hurt by cutting theDriver (P.W.2) with a pattaknife on his left hand, right arm, left thumb,tenderness over the left knee; and under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. for havingthreatened the passengers to cause death during the occurrence.During the trial, 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14, 24 exhibits were marked as Exs.P1 to P24 and 34 material objects were producedas M.Os.1 to 34, on behalf of prosecution.Among 14 witnesses, the Conductor was examined as P.W.1, theDriver was examined as P.W.2; two passengers, who travelled in the bus and hadseen the occurrence, were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4, and one Ameed was examinedas P.W.5, who was travelling in the lorry, which came from the opposite sideat about 2 a.m. on 21.1.1994, stopped near the place of occurrence, rescuedP.Ws.1 and 2 and shifted them to the Vandavasi bus stand, from where BeatPolice Ganesan (P.W.6) took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital,Vandavasi.P.W.11 was the medical witness, namely, Dr.I.Ramalingam, whoadmitted P.Ws.1 and 2 in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi, and referredP.Ws.1 and 2 to the General Hospital, Pondicherry, where P.Ws.1 and 2 wereadmitted by Dr.P.Muthayan (P.W.12) in the casualty ward.D.Ws.1 and 5 are thereporters of "Dina Malar" and "Malai Malar" respectively, through whom theaccused marked Ex.D1 dated 22.1.1994 and Ex.D.2 dated 23.1.1994 respectivelywith respect to the press news about the crime.D.Ws.2, 4 and 6 are thepolice officials, who accompanied P.W.14 during the search of the accused.P23) under mahazar (Ex.P10);(f)the recovery of one pair of rubber sandal chappal (M.O.16) under Ex.P3;(g)the recovery of a blood stained rose colour blue checked towel (M.O.17)from the scene of occurrence under Ex.(h)the recovery of trip sheet from 1.1.1994 to 20.1.1994 with respect to thebus bearing registration No.PY-01-9798 (M.O.18) under Ex.P3;These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction andsentence dated 8.3.1995 made in S.C.No.32 of 1994 on the file of the learnedAssistant Sessions Judge, Arani.Since both theappeals arise from the same judgment dated 8.3.1995 made in S.C.No.32 of 1994,they were heard and disposed of together.The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the evidence of oneThiru.P.2 Observation Mahazar, the occurrence hadtaken place 4 kms.away on the southern side of Vandavasi Police Station inVandavasi to Tindivanam Road near Maruthuvampadi Cross Road, where the busPY-01 9798 belonging to the Pondicherry Tourist Development Corporation wasstanding in the middle of the road towards Tindivanam.P.W.14 in hisObservation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) recorded that he noticed blood stains on thedriver's seat, door and body of the bus as well as on the road where the buswas standing.From the place of occurrence, P.W.14 recovered the following materialobjects under a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of P.W.7 and one Azirvadham:-During the interrogation, P.W.14 recovered the followingmaterial objects from A1 under a mahazar Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.7:-(i) a sum of Rs.1200/- (100 rupees currency note - 12 numbers) (M.O.2 0series); and(ii) a ticket No. 793527 (M.O.21);P.W.10 was the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, whoconducted an identification parade.P.W.13 was a Police Constable, whorecorded the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1) in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi.On the side of the defence, 6 witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1to 6 and 11 exhibits were marked as Exs.While questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. afterthe trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and A1, A2 and A3 stated that theynever travelled in the bus from Thirupathi to Pondicherry.A4 stated that hewas travelling with his mother (D.W.3) to go to the Ashramam at Pondicherry.As there was no bus to go to Melmaruvathur while coming from Vellore toVandavasi, they stayed at Vandavasi bus stand on 20/21.1.1994, and that he wasarrested on suspicion and charged for the above offence.D.Ws.2 and 4 were working in Vandavasi Police Station during the relevant timewhile D.W.6 was working in Vadavannakampadi Police Station.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Arani, appreciating theevidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable underSections 392, 392 r/w 397, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced them toundergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default one year R.I.under Section 392 I.P.C; 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- in defaultone year R.I. under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C.; 1 0 years R.I. with a fineof Rs.1000/- in default one year R.I. under Section 326 I.P.C.; and 7 yearsR.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default one year R.I. under Section 506(ii)I.P.C. and all the sentences to run concurrently deducting the sentencealready undergone.Hence, these appeals.Yeswanth Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant inCrl.(i) The prosecution failed to explain the basis for suspecting A1 inthe above crime.In the absence of any room for suspecting A1, there couldnot be any assumption of guilt for which A1 could be charged and tried.Consequently, the very arrest of A1, the recording of confession statement ofA1, the recovery of the material objects based on the confession of A1, andthe arrest of A2 to A4 are all liable to be rejected;(ii) There is no proper explanation for not citing any local witnesswith respect to:(a)the arrest of A1;(b)the recording of confession statement of A1 (Ex.P22);(c)the recovery of leather bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2), identity card(M.O.6) and four pattaknives (M.Os.10 to 13) under mahazar (Ex.P.6);(d)the recovery of a white shirt (M.O.3) on the confession made by A3 (Ex.P24)under mahazar (Ex.P.11);(e)the recovery of a checked lungi (M.O.4) on the confession made by A2(Ex.(i)the recovery of a sum of Rs.1200/- (M.O.20 series) and a ticket No.793527(M.O.21) from A1 under mahazar (Ex.P4)(j)the recovery of a sum of Rs.565/- (M.O.22 series) and a ticket No.793528(M.O.23) from A2 under mahazar (Ex.P7);(k)the recovery of a sum of Rs.570/- (M.O.24 series) and a ticket No.793529(M.O.25) from A3 under mahazar (Ex.P7); and(l)the recovery of a sum of Rs.565/- (M.O.26 series) and a ticket No.793530(M.O.27) from A4 under mahazar (Ex.P7);(iii) Even though P.W.7 was the Village Administrative Officer ofIllangadu Village, there is no proper explanation on behalf of the prosecutionas to why he accompanied the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) till all theaccused were arrested, their confession statements were recorded and thematerial objects were recovered;(iv) P.W.7, could not be a natural witness for all the arrests andrecovery of material objects, from different places at different points oftime.Therefore, in the absence of any other independent local witness, itwould not be safe to convict the accused placing reliance on the evidence ofP.W.7;(v) When the Conductor (P.W.1) in his earliest statement marked asEx.P1 recorded at about 4.15 a.m. on 21.1.1994, based on which, the firstinformation report (Ex.P.19) was registered, had stated that two personsassaulted him on his head and both arms repeatedly with long knives andsnatched away the cash bag (M.O.1) which contains Rs.3000/- and also took therexin bag (M.O.2) which c ontains a white shirt ( M.O.3) and a checked lunghi(M.O.4), and other two persons assaulted the Driver (P.W.2) on his arms with along knife, there is no basis for framing the above charges against A1 and A2that they assaulted the Conductor (P.W.1) and A3 and A4 assaulted the driver(P.W.2);(vi) Even though P.W.1 had stated in his statement (Ex.P.1) that hecould identify the accused if they were seen in person, as recorded in theFirst Information Report (Ex.P.19), he could not have seen the accused forwant of sufficient light at the time of occurrence.Inviting attention to theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Mr.Rajkumar Robert, points out that P.W.1 shoutedonly after receiving three cut injuries and the Driver (P.W.2) switched on thelight only after hearing the cry of the Condcutor (P.W.1).(viii) While the prosecution had chosen to examine one Ameed (P.W.5), as achance witness, who was travelling in a lorry, which came from the oppositedirection, and reached the place of occurrence immediately after the crime,there is no proper explanation by the prosecution for not examining the driverof the said lorry;(ix) There is no evidence by P.W.5, who was the first person to arrive at theplace of occurrence immediately after the crime, that he had seen P.Ws.3 and 4when he reached the place of occurrence;P14), as P.Ws.1 and 2 had also an occasion tosee the photographs of the accused, which were published in "Dina Malar"(Ex.P15 and P16, and the Medico-legal Examination ReportsExs.P17 and P18, as well as the material objects M.Os.10 to 13;I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions ofboth sides and have perused the relevant material evidence on record.D.1,2,3,4,5,10 and 11 as corroboratedby the evidence of the press reporters (D.Ws.1 and 5) further proves theoccurrence of the crime.When such fear and apprehension was spreading in the locality due tothe alleged crime, naturally, the State was obliged to act swiftly by formingan investigation team (Party Sakitham) headed by P.W.1 4 for an immediate andeffective investigation.The Rough Sketch, as seen from the original, shows that the occurrencehad taken place amidst dense trees on both the sides of theVandavasiTindivanam Road.The occurrence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. almostin the mid-night.When such a grave crime was said to have taken place in anisolated densely area, certainly the State police was burdened to set thepolice machinery on motion to apprehend the culprits at the earliest possible,as otherwise the apprehension and insecurity in the minds of the generalpublic would be spreading all around the State.Under such backdrop, P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, reached theplace of occurrence and found the bus bearing Registration No. PY-01-9798belonging to the Pondicherry Tourism Development Corporation stopped in themiddle of the road.P.W.14 observed the blood stains on the seat of theConductor and that of the Driver and also on the body of the bus and on theroad where the bus was standing.P.W.14 recovered towel (M.O.17) from thescene of occurrence.Further, P.W.1 4 with his investigation team (partysakitham) went in search of the culprits in and around the locality afterpreparing the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) at about 6 a.m. P.W.7, who is alsoa public servant, viz., Village Administrative Officer, of Illangaudu Village,got into the jeep, accompanied the investigation team and moved from place toplace in search of the accused.At about 3 p.m., they came across A1 nearIndustrial Training Institute, Ponnur, who was a stranger to the locality andtherefore, was arrested on suspicion.When the prosecution proposed to fixthe guilt on a person, who was arrested on suspicion, it is a trite law thatmore judicial caution is required in the judicial armoury because "greater thecrime, greater should be the standard of proof".The Court is, therefore,inclined to see whether A1 much less A2 to A4 who were arrested based on theconfession statement of A1 could be convicted merely on the basis ofsuspicion.The serious contention of Mr.Rajkumar Robert, learned counsel appearingfor the appellants, is that there was no convincing reason or explanation fornot citing the witnesses of the locality either for the arrest of A1 or forhis confession statement or for recovery of the material objects, viz.,M.Os.10 to 13, based on the confession statement of A1, or for the arrest ofA2 to A4, or for the seizure of the material objects from them, etc., exceptthe evidence of P.W.7 through out.Of course, a serious complaint was alsomade on behalf of the appellants/accused about the continuous presence ofP.W.7 during the investigation, arrest of A1, recording his confessionstatement, recovery of M.Os.10 to 13, and thereafter during the arrest of A2to A4, recording their confession statements and while recovering othermaterial objects from them.Even though the contention of the learned counsel appearing for theappellants is impressive, in my considered opinion, as no motive could beattributed against him (P.W.7), the company of P.W.7 with the investigationteam cannot be either disbelieved or rejected as untrustworthy merely for wantof any local witness.The investigation had been mooted immediately after theoccurrence with all seriousness for apprehending the culprits.P.W.14 leadingthe investigation team to apprehend the culprits moved all around in the placeof occurrence from 6 a.m. i.e. immediately within four hours from the timeof occurrence.Viewing the company ofP.W.7 with the investigation team headed by P.W.14 from this angle, I do notsee any reason to disbelieve his being a witness to the Mahazars throughout.Even though a suggestion was made toP.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross examination that they had enemies in their tradeunion activities and that the occurrence could have been caused at theinstance of their trade union rivals, I do not find any reason to appreciatethe said defence, because, if the occurrence had taken place at the instanceof trade union rivals, P.Ws.1 and 2 would have straightaway pointed out theirfingers against them and would not have chosen to implicate the innocentpersons to rope them into the crime.On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, passengers whotravelled in the same bus, who spoke about the occurrence and the injuriescaused on P.Ws.1 and 2, corroborate with the evidence of chance witness(P.W.5) and that of medical evidence (P.Ws.11 and 12) supported withdocumentary evidence, viz., accident registers (Exs.P15 and 16) and theMedicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and 18).On the whole, both theinjured eye witnesses and eye witnesses cogently say that all the accusedparticipated in the attack.That apart, it isalso settled law that there cannot be a hard and fast rule that theidentification test parade conducted should be rejected merely on the groundthat there was a delay in conducting the identification test parade, when suchdelay could be explained.It depends upon the facts and circumstances of eachcase and the condition of the witness to attend the identification testparade.The production of bloodstained cloths of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborates with the grievous nature of theinjuries.P.Ws.1 and 2 were treated as inpatient for nearly one month andthereafter as outpatients.P.W.1 in his earliest statement (Ex.P1), which wasrecorded immediately after two hours of the occurrence, had stated that hecould identify the accused if seen in person.If that be so, the delay inconducting the identification test parade for identifying the accused 1 to 4by P.Ws.1 and 2, itself, cannot be a legitimate ground to disbelieve thetestimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are injured eye witnesses.With regard to the other ground of attack on theidentification test parade that the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Cheyyar,who conducted the identification test parade has not taken sufficient cautionto confirm whether the P.Ws.1 and 2 had any occasion to see the accused beforeconducting the identification parade, I am of considered opinion that suchlapses in the procedure would not, by itself, be a justification to reject theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, as held by the Apex Court in SOMAPPA Vs.When P.W.2 questioned them, the accusedshouting "Cut him also, why he pressed the horn and switched on the light",started assaulting him.In his crossexamination P.W.2 stated that two personsstanding in front and two persons standing in the back of the Conductor(P.W.1) assaulted him and thereafter, he (P.W.2) applied brake and preventedthe attack, but sustained injury and got down from the bus and fainted.10.15. P.W.4, another eye witness, who travelled from Tirupathi toPondicherry in the same bus, at the time of occurrence, corroborating with theevidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 deposed that she was awake from Tirupathi toTiruttani and then slept for some time when the bus left Tiruttani and reachedVandavasi.At Vandavasi, all other passengers had tea.After sometime, thebus left Vandavasi, P.W.2 alarmed and cried for help and on hearing the noiseall the passengers woke up and shouted having found P.W.1 and P.W.2 cut.snatched thecash bag (M.O.1) and ran away and two persons attacked P.W.2 and ran away.P.W.4 after narrating the incidents, also stated that all the passengersstayed at the place of occurrence for nearly one hour till the police camethere and thereafter, they came by walk to the police-station.P.W.4 alsodeposed that, when P.W.1 was moving back immediately after the attack, P.W.4'ssaree got blood stained.If the evidence, of P.Ws.1 to 4 are scrutinisedminutely, they clearly prove that all the accused jointly attacked P.Ws.1 and2, snatched the cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2) and committed extortion.P.Ws.1 and 2 graphically narrated the event of crime.Theevidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, natural witnesses, who travelled in the same buscogently speaks about the occurrence.A collective appreciation of theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, shows that even though the accused initially attackedin the red light all the eye witnesses deposed that immediately after thesecond attack on P.W.1 the Driver (P.W.2) switched on the light and thereafterthe accused attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 causing further injuries, snatched the cashbag (M.O.1) with cash and ran away with the shoulder rexin bag (M.O.2) withthe materials therein.The injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 as mentioned inExs.P.15 and 16 respectively, read as follows:1) An incised wound over the right eye brow 1" x +" x ," bleeding.2) An incised wound over the right fore head 1" x +" x ," bleeding.3) An incised wound over the left fore arm upper 1/3rd 3"x1"x1" bleeding.4) An incised wound over the right arm interior upper 2" x ," x +" bleeding.5) An incised wound over the right fore arm Medial Middle 1/3" 3" x 1" x 1".6) An incised wound over the right little finger palmar surface dorsal 1" x ,"x ," bleeding.Injuries sustained by P.W.21) An incised wound over the left Thenar space hand 3" x 1" x +" bleeding.2) An incised wound over the Hypo Thenar left hand 4" x 1" x 1" bleeding.3) An incised wound over the right arm upper end 3" x 1" x 1" bleeing.4) An incised wound over the left thumb palmar surface 1 +" x +" x +"bleeding.5) Tenderness over the left knee.The above extract of injuries reflects the graveness of the injuries sustainedby P.Ws.1 and 2 during the attack. P.Ws.11 and 12 opine that these graveinjuries would have been caused only by using deadly weapons.The evidence ofP.Ws.11 and 12 in the light of the documentary evidence, viz., accidentregisters (Exs.P15 and 16) and Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant thatP. Ws.1 to 4 could not have identified the accused as though the entireoccurrence had taken place in the dim light is liable to be rejected.Of course, there may be discrepancies with regard to thedescription of the weapons used for the commission of the crime in question aspointed by Mr.Rajkumar Robert.But, once the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and2 corroborate with the opinion of the Doctor (P.W.12) that the injuries wouldhave been caused by using the deadly weapons marked as M.Os.10 to 13, in myconsidered opinion, the minor discrepancies and variations in describing theweapons in Ex.It may notbe even necessary to catalogue the overt acts therein.Non mentioning of somefacts or vague reference to some other facts in the F.I.R. is not fatal, videBALDEV SINGH Vs.The lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, for notsending the material objects, such as cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2),white shirt (M.O.3), checked lungi (M.O.4), identity card (M.O.6), currencies(M.Os.20, 22, 24 & 26) and t ts (M.Os.21, 23, 25 and 27), for finger printtest to connect the accused in the crime and for not sending the blood stainedweapons (M.Os.10 to 13) for Serologist's report would not benefit the accused,as the efforts of the Criminal Court should not be to prowl for imaginativedoubts, unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judiciallyconscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, as held in STATE OFRAJASTHAN Vs.Hence, the absence ofthe report for the finger prints of the accused on the material objects or theabsence of Serologist's report with respect to the blood stains found on thematerial objects M.Os.10 to 13 could not be a justification to reject theevidence of the injured eye witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), whose evidencecorroborates with that of the other eye witnesses (P.Ws.3 and 4) who travelledin the same bus, Mahazar witness (P. W.7), investigating Officer (P.W.14),and the medical evidence of P. Ws.11 and 12 read with the accident registers(Exs.P.15 and 16) and Medicolegal Examination Reports (Exs.P17 and 18).The Assistant Sessions Judge,Arani	['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,465,250	Yogini, the deceased, was educated upto matriculation and, since 1976, was serving at Hind Condenser Company, at Pimpri, near Pune.The petitioner was serving in the College of Military Engineering, at Dapoli, near Pune, as an Assistant in the Library.He was staying with his parents at Block No. 4/180, at the Municipal Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Pune.Soon after the marriage on 29th December, 1982, Yogini started complaining to her parents and brother about the quarrels the petitioner used to pick-up with her on petty matters and beat her.There used to be quarrels between the petitioner and Yogini as to the particular finger to be used for applying 'Kumkum' (vermilion) on her forehead.The petitioner wanted Yogini to use a particular finger only and if she did not abide by such instructions, he used to be irritated and beat her.The petitioner complained that Yogini was not taught good manners and etiquettes.When she was pregnant, dispute arose between the husband and wife as to who should bear the maternity expenses.When she informed the petitioner that her parents were not in a position to bear the maternity expenses, the petitioner got enraged and had beaten her.Her mother PW 1 Gangabai, who is the complainant, advised her to go back to the matrimonial home and consult her husband.On the 17th May, 1984, while Yogini was feeding her child, the milk bottle fell and broke.The petitioner lost his temper at this and kicked Yogini.When she protested at her being kicked, the petitioner beat her.The defence of the petitioner was one of denial.According to him, Yogini caught fire due to accidental bursting of stove while cooking food on the stove.He denied ill-treatment or cruelty to her.He denied that he had indulged in any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive his wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).He denied causing any harassment to his wife and, therefore, contended that he was not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC.At the trial, evidence of PW 1 Gangabai, mother of Yogini, PW 2 - Ganesh, her brother PW 3 - Shripad - husband of her sister, PW 4 Dr. Makarand Deshpande, Medical Officer at the Sasoon Hospital, Pune, PW 5 - Sitaram Khambe, Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration - Exh. 24, PW 6 Uttam Shinde, the In vestigating Officer, PW 7 Shashikant Chavan, Head Constable and PW 8 Raghunath Shinde, Head Constable was recorded.JUDGMENT A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Deshpande for the petitioner-original accused, Mr. Thakur, Asstt.Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. R.M. Agrawal for the Union of India and the learned Attorney-General.Under the impugned Judgments, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks.By an order dated 30th April, 1993, leave was granted to amend the petition and raise a contention regarding the constitutional validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Pursuant to such an amendment being carried out, by an order dated 11th June, 1993, the matter has been directed to be placed before a Division Bench.On 22nd January, 1998, this Court directed the issuance of notice to the Attorney-General since the constitutional validity of Section 498A, IPC was challenged.Ganesh went to the petitioner's house and hold him that the maternity expenses of Yogini could be borne out of the Employees State Insurance Scheme benefits.However, the petitioner made it clear that he needed that money for some other purpose.Be that as it may, Yogini was sent to her mother's place for delivery and on 16th January, 1984 she delivered a girl - Prachi.Even in respect of applying 'Kajal' (black-spot) on Prachi's cheek, there used to be quarrels between the petitioner and Yogini as to the finger to be used.On the 28th March, 1984, the petitioner's father expired, Yogini came back to the matrimonial home.When the petitioner insisted on her selling her gold ring, she took half-day's leave on 15th May, 1984, went to her parent's house and informed them that she wanted to sell her gold ring.He thereafter went to attend his office.Yogini had an off-day.In the letter, she narrated the incident which had occurred in the morning.She regretted that she was being harassed in the matrimonial home, both by her husband and her mother-in-law.She, therefore, made it clear that she wanted to end her life by burning herself.She regretted that her being ill-treated at the matrimonial home was a matter of concern to her parents.Rather than suffering such a situation, she preferred to put an end to her life.She recorded the fact that her husband was always saying that unless one of the three (petitioner, petitioner's mother and Yogini) dies, there won't be happiness in the home.Her only concern was welfare of her child Prachi.She referred to the fact that there was some amount standing to her credit in the Gratuity Fund and there were some ornaments which should be taken to her maternal home.She then bade farewell to all her relatives.She reiterated that she never enjoyed any happiness in the matrimonial home though it was on the recommendation of some known intermediaries that the marriage was arranged.It was difficult for her to survive there and hence, rather than suffering everyday she preferred to suffer once for all and put an end to her life.In the result, while expressing her regret that her daughter would not have the love of her mother, she prayed that the daughter should be looked after.The petitioner was in his office when the incident occurred and reached the hospital after being informed of the same.The charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioner.The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of wilful conduct which was of such a nature as had driven his wife to commit suicide.The petitioner had, therefore, subjected hiswife to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A, IPC which had resulted in his wife putting herself on fire.These provisions deal with the two distinct offences.The deceased had set herself and her 3 children ablaze in the afternoon of 3rd June, 1983 at the residence of her husband Iqbal Singh.Apart from Mr. Deshpande and Mr. Agarwal, we have also heard Mr. Thakur, the learned APP on merits of the revision application.We have already indicated, at the outset the evidence that was led.She was already fed up with the cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner and his mother.Handwriting of the deceased in the letter Exh. 14 has not been disputed by the petitioner.They have deposed to the fact that the deceased was complaining of the cruelty in the matrimonial home at the hands of the petitioner and his mother.In the result, we uphold the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.For considering the question of sentence, by consent, the matter is adjourned to Friday the 3rd April, 1998 at 11.00 a.m.	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,531	JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, J.These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seek the quashing of FIR No. 177 of 2004 under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto.The Petitioners in Criminal Misc.Case No. 1860-61 of 2006 are the cousin brothers of the complainant's husband.The Petitioners in Criminal Misc.Case No. 1862-63 of 2006 are the brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the complainant and the father of the Nandoi.The Petitioners in Criminal Misc.Case No. 1880-82 of 2006 are Smt. Sukhma the sister of the husband's father, her husband Hukam Singh and their daughter Smt. Magan.She thereafter filed another complaint before the CAW Cell Police Station Nanak Pura which was also not pursued.A third complaint was filed before the CAW Cell Police Station Maya Puri.The Petitioners obtained anticipatory bail in those proceedings.Thereafter the complainant approached the police again and FIR No. 177 of 2004 was registered at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan under Sections 498A/406 IPC against the Petitioners here.The submissions of Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners are as follows:(a) The complainant herself at one stage during the proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail made a statement before the learned ASJ that she was willing to go back to the matrimonial home.Thereafter the present complaint was filed which led to the registration of the FIR.A sampling of these allegations (which have been roughly translated from the original in Hindi) read as under:My husband, sister in law, mother in law, father in law and my elder father in law and his two sons and aunt of my husband and his son started misbehaving, beating and abusing me daily.When I lost to tolerate, I told about the same to my families that they are still demanding for a specific items like big car in place of Santro DLX car Rs. 10 lakhs for opening of a lab and for purchasing a new house in Gurgaon on the plea that I will be unhappy here if I live there.For installation of tube well in Farooq Naga and for construction of house there etc. My husband, sister in law, mother in law and father in law started beating me and telling that whenever I go to my home these items must be brought.Their behavior towards me was not good and on small issues my husband used to say that why my brother is not going to the house of my Bua and why not discussing with bua and his daughter and asked me to go there and brought something.All the expenses of my sister has to be borne by you.Once when I woke up instantly from sleep I found that my husband, father in law, elder father in law and his two sons were talking that let us get a suicide note written from a handwriting expert and kill her and thereafter we will tell that she has committed suicide.My Aunt- mother in law and her daughter often used to talk over phone with my husband and mother in law that you have make her bad.If were we there, would have make her right in one day.Beat her to such an extent that she became slave of yours for entire life.When you will behave with her like an animal, then she will become an animal.My aunt mother in law used to threat me to kidnap me on saying that she has connection with such persons that they will get me vanished and no one will find my corpse even.When one night my husband, mother in law, father in law beat me then on the next day my brother asked about the said beatings, then my aunt mother in law told that whenever we will like we will beat you, but you will not call your brother nor we will allow the neighbours to come.My aunt father in law and her daughter used to threaten me that if you tell this to the police or the police came to our house, then your husband will commit suicide.The daughter of aunt father in law used to talk often with my husband by using ugly words which a sister cannot dare to talk with a brother.In this way one and a half years spent in my in-laws house, but one day when my husband, sister in law, father in law, mother in law, elder father in law and his two sons and aunt of my husband and her daughter were present when they all insulted me for their demand.Thereafter on 19th March 2004 at 7.00 AM again beat for demand of dowry due to which I received much injury in my abdomen.A call about the same I made to 1091 and PCR and my MLC was done and my husband and father in law were put in lock up.Although the earlier complaints might have been filed what we are concerned with really is the present FIR which has been investigated and the charge sheet that has been filed thereafter.	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,535	Dunna Lal appellant is the son of Makhan Lal and brother of appellants Narendra Lal and Sahukar Lal.Smt Shankari Devi is the mother of Dunna Lal.In this way all the five accused in this case belong to one family.The case of the prosecution is that on November 14, 1985 at about 4 p.m. Dunna Lat had beaten Guthyar Singh in his house in village Bisald.That day Guthyar Singh went to the house of his brother Anand Singh in village Teri in the evening for night stay.The aforesaid five persons entered the house of Anand Singh at about 8 p.m. and had assaulted Guthyar Singh and Anand Singh with lathis.Bahadur Singh, the third brother of victim, came on the spot and tried to save them but he was also assaulted by Dunna Lal on the head by lathi.Bahadur Singh and his brother drove away the assailants from the house of Anand Singh.The accused left the house of Anand Singh giving threat to kill them.Guthyar Singh, Bahadur Singh and Anand Singh had received injuries on their person.Guthyar Singh developed pain in his stomach and was unable to stand.(iv) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm at right shoulder region(v) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm at right thigh about 20 cm below iliac crest.A report of the occurrence was lodged by Bahadur Singh with the Patwari of the village on November 25, 1985 at 3.30 p.m.Patti Patwari Ram (P.W.5) took the investigation in his own hands.He prepared the Chick report on the basis of the written report delivered by Bahadur Singh and also registered a case under Sections 452/ 307/ 323/ 506 I.P.C. in the General Diary of the Police Station against the accused persons.The Investigating Officer reached the village Teri and he found Guthyar Singh unconscious.He got him treated by a Private Medical Practioner.During the night, the condition of Guthyar Singh started deteriorating.Anand Singh went to the Investigating .Officer at 10.30 p.m. and informed him about the serious condition of Guthyar Singh whereupon he brought the Medical Officer of Government Dispensary, Pabau, to the village of occurrence and got Guthyar Singh examined by him.JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J.Narendra Lal, Sahukar Lal and K. Makhan Lal appellants were also convicted by the trial court under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C., 452 and 323/34 I.P.C 323 I.P.C., but instead of giving them jail sentence, the trial court had extended them the benefit of the Probation of First Offenders Act, on their furnishing two sureties of Rs. 2,000 each and a personal bond in the like amount for remaining on good conduct for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the trial court.Alongwith the appellants, Smt. Shankari Devi the mother of the appellants Dunna Lal, NarendraLal and Sahukar Lal was also prosecuted, butshe was acquitted.The injuries of Bahadur Singh and Anand Singh were examined at Government Dispensary Pabau on November 25, 1985 by the Medical Officer between 11 a.m. and 11.18 a.m. Injuries of Bahadur Singh Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1/4 cm scalp deep about 10 cm from left ear.Injuries of Anand Singh(i) Clotted blood present around the right ear and external ear opening with contusion 2cm x 2cm in front of right ear.(ii) Black eye on the left line(iii) Contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left temporal regionThe doctor advised the family members of Guthyar Singh to shift him to Pauri for treatment.The Medical Officer again visited the residence of Guthyar Singh at about 7 p.m. on November 25, 1985, but by this time Guthyar Singh had succumbed to his injuries.Thereafter, the aforesaid case under Section 307 I.P.C. was converted to one under Section 302 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report and sent dead body of Guthyar Singh in a sealed cover to the mortuary at District Hospital Pauri for post- mortem examination.The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased;(i) Clotted blood present and the right ear and external ear opening contusion 2 cm x 2 cm in front of right ear.(ii) Black eye on the left eye.(iii) Contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left region.(iv) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm at right shoulder region.(v) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm at right thigh above 20 cm below iliac.According to the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury.The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity.However, no one was examined in defence.On the consideration of the entire evidence on the record, the trial court convicted the appellants Dunna Lal, Narendra Lal, Sahukar Lal and Makhan Lal under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code.Dunna Lal was sentenced to imprisonment and fine as stated above, whereas Narendra La, Sahukar Lal and Makhan Lal were given benefit of Probation of First Offenders Act. Smt. Shankari Devi, the mother of Dunna Lal, was acquitted.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and out of them Bahadur Singh (P.W.I), Anand Singh (P.W.2) and Matbar Singh (P.W.4) were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Bahadur Singh has narrated the prosecution case in detail.He has deposed that Guthyar Singh was his younger brother and all the accused belong to his village.He stated that on November 24, 1985 at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. while he was going from the side of village Bisald to his village Teri, the accused Dunna Lal met him near the school and he enquired about the whereabouts of his brother Guthyar Singh and on his enquiry he replied that he had some particular business with Guthyar Singh.He told him that Guthyar Singh was at his house whereupon the accused Dunna Lal proceeded towards the village Bisald.He further deposed that the same day at about 8 p.m. while he was at his house in village Teri he heard an alarm coming out from the side of Anand Singh's house whereupon he went there and found that all the five accused, namely Dunna Lal, Makhan Lal, Narendra Lal, Sahulkar Lal and Smt. Shankari Devi were assaulting Anand Singh and Guthyar Singh.All of them had dandas in their hands and when he tried to intervene, Dunna Lal had given a danda blow on his head.Matbar Singh and Baljati had reached there and they had also tried to save us.The accused, thereafter, went away from the place of occurrence.He further deposed that when he went to the house of Anand Singh next morning he found the condition of Guthyar Singh very serious.He went to the Bazar and brought pain killer tablets and administered to Anand Singh.He, then, went to the Government Dispensary for taking medicine for him along with Anand Singh.He further deposed that Dr. Prem Singh had examined Guthyar Singh and he advised that Guthyar Singh be taken to Pauri for medical examination and treatment on account of his serious condition.He further deposed that thereafter he went to Pauri Chowki and handed over his written report to the Patwari regarding the occurrence.It was further stated by him that Guthyar Singh was to be taken to the District Hospital next day, but he succumbed to his injuries next morning at about 1 7 a.m.Bahadur Singh is the brother of the deceased Guthyar Singh but his evidence cannot be brushed aside merely on his blood relationship with Guthyar Singh deceased.Bahadur Singh had lodged the report of the occurrence with some delay on the next day of the occurrence at 3.30 p.m. but the explanation given by him has fully explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. all the accused were named and no specific part was assigned to any one.It was mentioned in the report that all the accused had participated in the maraud.I have very carefully gone through the evidence of Bahadur Singh and I do not find any infirmity in the evidence to discredit his testimony.His evidence is quite trustworthy and convincing.I, therefore, direct the authorities concerned to review the order dated December 6, 1986, terminating the service of the appellant Dunna Lal as Lance Naik in Border Security Force, if any review application or appeal is filed by the appellant.I feel that the aforesaid rulings passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court as detailed above were not placed before the authorities concerned when the authority concerned had passed the order dated December 6, 1986 terminating the service of the appellant.The period of probation shall commence from the day on which the surety bonds shall be filed in the court.	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,465,369	The total value of the said ornaments and articles would be about Rs. 7,78,975/-.It was her desire that the said ornaments and articles would be distributed equally amongst her sons and daughters, but she suddenly expired before she could fulfil such desire.For about 5 years after her death, the said ornaments and articles remained in the drawer of her almirah on the first floor of the premises No. 75/A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta.A year later, it was mutually agreed by and between the sons and daughters of the deceased mother that the gold ornaments and other articles would remain in the custody of the opposite party No.1, Mohar Ch.Dawn, who was the eldest amongst all the sons and daughters and would be retained in the said almirah of the said premises.The petitioner is one of the sons of the Chapala Rani Dawn.JUDGMENT D.B.Dutta, J.In pursuance of the agreement, all the articles were entrusted with the opposite party No. 1 and the key to the almirah and the drawer was handed over to him.On 8th September, 1990 as per custom of the family when the almirah and the drawer were unlocked to bring out the gold and silver ornaments and other articles for periodical examination and cleaning, it was detected that they were missing.It was believed by the petitioner and his other brothers and sisters that the opposite party No.1 in collusion with his wife, opposite party No.2 had converted the said gold and silver ornaments and other articles entrusted to him committing thereby a criminal breach of trust.Despite repeated demands for explanation, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 failed to give any satisfactory explanation to account for the same.On that very date, that is 8.9.90, a FIR was lodged with the Amherst Street Police Station against the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and it was diasied as section F case No. 324 dated 8.9.90 under sections 406 and 120B of the IPC.The petitioner complained of criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy by the opposite party No. 1 and his wife opposite party No.2 but the accused being an officer of the Calcutta Police posted at Lalbazar, the police registered a case under section 380 IPC in stead of a case under sections 406/120B IPC.The order of stoppage of investigation and discharge was passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 15th April, 1993 without giving any notice or any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance upon the complaint and transferred it to the Metropolitan Magistrate.The complainant petitioner and his witnesses were examined between 24.1.94 and 23.3.94 under section 200 Cr PC.On 23.3.94, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, upon consideration of the materials on record, was pleased to dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr PC on two grounds viz. first, that the cognizance was taken on 24.9.93 long after the expiry of three years from the date of occurrence and as such, was barred by limits of time and secondly, that there is no believeable evidence on record to prove the existence of such a huge quantify of ornaments and articles and also the alleged entrustment thereof to the accused and as such, there was sufficient ground for issuing processes under sections 406/120B.Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has come up in revision impleading the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the State.The question is whether the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be deemed to have taken cognizance only on 24.9.93, on which he records the fact that he took cognizance, or earlier.The order sheet shows that on 6.9.93, the date on which the complaint was presented before the learned Magistrate, the Complaint was present before the Magistrate and upon hearing the learned lawyer of the complainant, the learned Magistrate directed the complaint to be put up with case No. F324 dated 8.9.90 fixing 15.9.93 as the next date for his orders.Now, case No. F324 dated 6.9.90 was a case that was registered on the basis of an information lodged with the concerned Police Station by the complainant petitioner on 8.9.90, the very date on which the offence came to his knowledge.Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at this stage. 'The materials on record here consist of the unchallenged testimonies of the three witnesses namely the complainant and one of his brothers and a sister.	['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,543,237	http://www.judis.nic.in 10 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15609 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.6896 and 6897 of 2018 03.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThis quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.76 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2018, the petitioner along with other accused have unlawfully gathered by violating the order of the District Collector and caused road block from 10.30 a.m to 11.30 a.m. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 341, 143 and 188 of I.P.C in C.C.No.76 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioner and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.10.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.76 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.	['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,545,007	There was no arrangement for medical treatment or assistance to him upto 05.06.2020 and since then the things are going beyond the control.The deceased Bharat was taken to hospital and get him admitted.Unfortunately, on 07.06.2020 during treatment Bharat died and as per the post-mortem there is singular ante-mortem injury over his head and cause of death is ante-mortem head injury.Heard Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.Contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is sole named accused, but in that incident said to have been taken place on 30.05.2020 it was alleged that there was minor scuffle between the applicant and the deceased and the deceased has fallen down causing certain injuries.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.	['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,547,373	The nubble of the prosecution case is that both the prosecutrix and accused are neighbours.By way of giving false promise of marrying the prosecutrix during the festival occasion in the year 2006, the accused has had carnal copulation with the prosecutrix.The accused had abducted the prosecutrix on 26.1.2004 and thereafter, raped her without consent.On receipt of of Ex.The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the court of Sessions, Erode Division and the same has been taken on file in S.C.No.75 of 2006 and subsequently made over to the Trial Court.The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed the first charge against the accused under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and second charge against him under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to him.The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and M.Os.1 to 7 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.On the side of the accused, no oral evidence has been adduced.But, Exs.D1 to D3 have been marked.Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Erode District.	['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,654,920	Crl M.A. No. 43508/2019 (For Restoration of appeal) The present application has been filed by the appellant for restoration of Criminal appeal and setting aside of order dated 18.12.2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution.For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 18.12.2019, dismissing the appeal for want of non-proseuction is recalled.The appeal be restored to its original number.Application stands allowed.CRL.A. 1428/2019 Page 1 of 7CRL.A. 1428/2019 Page 2 of 7We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.However, when the word, 'prima facie' is coupled with the word 'true', it implies that the court has to undertake an exercise of cross-checking the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint on the basis of the materials on record.If the court finds, on such analysis, that the accusations made are inherently improbable, or wholly unbelievable it may be difficult to say that a case which is prima facie true, has been made out.What at best, the Special Court can do, and shall do, is to examine if the accusations made on the basis of the materials collected, are wholly improbable.When the materials are, on examination by the Special Court, found to be not wholly improbable and the Special Court finds, on assuming such materials to be true, that the accusations made against an accused, as regards commission of an offence under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UA(P) Act, are prima facie true, such materials would be enough to attract the bar imposed by the proviso to Section 43D(5).To put it a little differently, the Special Court is required to examine the materials, collected during investigation, assuming the same to be true and if such materials on such examination and consideration, are found to make out a case against the accused, the Special Court has to determine if there is any such thing in the materials so collected, which would make the case, which has been made out against the accused, as a wholly improbable case.It is also on record that the appellant used to propagate the idea of violent Jihad and was involved in raising anti-government sentiment due to his Jihadi mindset.The role of the appellant surfaced during the disclosure statement of accused Yasin Bhatkal, an Indian Mujahideen operative who was facilitating channelizing of funds received from Pakistan via Dubai.Further, the record reflects that the appellant was the main link for transfer of funds between the other controllers of the Indian Mujaiheedeen network.The appellant was arrested on 20.05.2016 after being deported by the UAE Government and has been named in the third supplementary chargesheet in RC No. 06/2012/NIA/NEW DELHI as an accused.The disclosure statement of accused Yasin Bhatkal as well as PW-362 Javed Ahmad, PW-363 Abdul Mateen, PW-364 Abdul Basith and PW-365 Mohd. Ubaid Kola reveals that he was radicalized and was of a Jihadi mindset and was involved in illegal money transaction for funding the Indian Mujahideen terrorist activities in India as well abroad.Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.Needless to say, that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the grounds urged before us today and would not be treated as an expression on the merits of the matter before the trial court.	['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,552,890	Shri A.B.Khan, Advocate for respondent no.2/complainant.This court has got the compromise entered into the parties verified through the Registrar (J-II) of this court.	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,558,836	She stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and had married him of her own free will.She submits that since her parents were not happy with this marriage, therefore, she decided to leave her house and started living separately with the petitioner as his wife and is happily residing with the petitioner.The respondent No.3 submits that after the marriage, her parents should not have any objection; however, a complaint was made by her father, which was culminated into FIR mentioned above.Therefore, respondent No.3 has prayed that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.Section 5(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, prohibits marriage of a Crl.This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 32/2015 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint dated 16.01.2015 lodged by the father (respondent No.2) of the prosecutrix (respondent No.3) alleging kidnapping of the prosecutrix by the petitioner from his lawful guardianship, at that time she was aged only Crl.M.C. 463/2015 Page 1 of 6 17 years and six months and had married her without the consent of her parents.M.C. 463/2015 Page 1 of 6By virtue of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings emanating from the same on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were friends and were having an affair.Their family members were against the marriage.Therefore, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 left their respective houses, resulting in registration of the FIR in question.It is stated that on 16.12.2014, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir as per Hindu Rites and thereafter they started living together as husband and wife.Here again no straight jacket formula can be applied.The Court has to be cautious, for the girl has right to get the marriage nullified under Section 3 of the PCM Act. Attending circumstances including the maturity and understanding of the girl, social background Crl.M.C. 463/2015 Page 2 of 6 of girl, age of the girl and boy etc. have to be taken into consideration."M.C. 463/2015 Page 2 of 6On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that FIR in question was registered against the petitioner as on the date of kidnapping of the respondent No.3, she was 17 years and six months of age.She further submits that thereafter petitioner and respondent No. 3 have entered into a marriage on 16.12.2014 and are living together as husband and wife, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings.	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,402,518	I was inside my house at the said date and time and was having dinner with my wife when the quarrel was going on outside at about 8.30 PM and I went out at 9.30 PM to check and all the people had disbursed by that time and I did not notice anything.My children were not present there at that time.Aaya Nagar is about 10-12 km away from my jhuggi.Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 2 of 7witnesses PW-1 Sunita the wife of the deceased, Sonu Sharma and Lokesh @ Rocky the sons of the deceased.An information was received at PS R.K.Puram vide DD No.52A on October 20, 2008 at 9.58 PM regarding a quarrel at Sector-7, R.K.Puram Ekta Camp.SI Pratap Singh reached the spot from where injured had already been removed.On reaching Safdarjung hospital he found three injured; Mannu Dev, Sonu and Sunita who had been brought to the hospital.He recorded the statement of Sonu who stated on the night at around 9.30 PM his brother Rocky was returning home from duty when he and his father Mannu Dev saw Devi Singh and Yogesh, their neighbours had stopped Rocky in the gali and were abusing him.When Sonu and his father Mannu Dev intervened the accused threatened, bullied and left the place.They all came home.After some time Devi Singh came to their jhuggi along with his sons Yogesh, Lokesh and nephew Vijay.They were all armed with rods and dandas.They came inside the jhuggi in the outer room/verandah where Mannu Dev was resting on takht and started abusing him.They beat his father.When his mother came out to save his father they gave injuries to her also.He saw accused persons hitting his father on head with rods and dandas.On hearing the noise the neighbours collected, on which the four ran away.His brother made a call to 100 number and they were brought to the hospital.On the basis of this statement FIR No.403/2008 under Section 452/308/34 IPC was registered.Later Mannu Dev expired on November 29, 2008 when offences under Sections 302/323 IPC were also added.The post-mortem of Mannu Dev was conducted by Dr.Abhishek Yadav, PW-10 who authored the report Ex.PW-10/A. He found five ante mortem injuries including the surgical wound on the body of the deceased Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 3 of 7 and in his opinion the cause of death was cranio-cerebral damage due to head injury.All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury Nos.2 to 5 as mentioned in the post-mortem report were produced due to blunt force.Vijay appellant in CRL.A.1529/2011; Devi Singh, Lokesh and Yogesh appellants in CRL.A.580/2012 were charged with the offence of trespassing into the house of Mannu Dev Sharma and committing his murder and voluntarily causing hurt to Ms.Vide the impugned judgment dated September 13, 2011, they have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452/302/323/34 IPC and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 1 of 7 and pay a fine of `10,000/- each, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay a fine of `5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and pay a fine in sum of `1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 1 of 7The appellants are all related: Lokesh and Yogesh being the sons of Devi Singh and Vijay his nephew.In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have all pleaded false implication.It would be relevant to note the statement of Devi Singh which covers the case of Lokesh and Yogesh as well as under:"Q. Have you anything else to say?It is a false case.I have been falsely implicated in this case.I do not know why Sunita has falsely implicated in this case."Even the defence of Vijay, the nephew of Devi Singh is that he was innocent and does not know why he was named by the witnesses.He states that he was not present with the other persons at that place on the said date, time and place as alleged and has been falsely implicated in this case being a native of the village.No defence evidence has been led by the appellants.The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of three eye-On the recovery of the weapons of offence i.e. the wooden danda and hollow metallic pipe he opined vide his subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/B that the injuries No.2 to 5 in the post-mortem report were possible with the hollow metallic pipe.Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 3 of 7Sonu Sharma while deposing as PW-6 in the witness box stated that on October 20, 2008 at about 9.30 PM while he was present at his house with his parents and brother Pawan, all of sudden he heard the noise of quarrel.Immediately he along with his father came outside and saw that Devi Singh and Yogesh present in the Court were abusing Rocky in the gall approaching towards their house.Thereafter Sonu along with his father and brother came to their house and the accused persons left the spot.His father was lying on the Takht in the Jhuggi and the mother in the room inside the jhuggi.After 5-10 minutes of this incident Devi Singh, Lokesh, Yogesh and Vijay came to their Jhuggi.Lokesh and Devi Singh were holding iron rods and Vijay and Yogesh were having dandas.All the accused persons started beating his father by the respective weapons.On hearing the alarm by his father, his mother also came out.They all tried to save their father on which Vijay gave a danda blow on his left hand.Yogesh gave blows on the hands, back and legs of his mother.They raised alarm and persons from the neighbourhood collected.Thus the Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 4 of 7 version that Yogesh gave blow on the hands, back and legs of his mother by danda is an exaggeration, however the presence of Sonu and Sunita at the spot cannot be disputed since it was night time and they had also been taken to the hospital.Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 4 of 7Though Rocky deposed in sync with Sonu however, Rocky stated that except Devi Singh who was having a rod in his hand, the other three accused persons were holding dandas in their hands whereas the case of Sonu was that Lokesh and Devi Singh were having iron rods and Vijay and Yogesh were having dandas.As per Rocky as soon as his mother and brother Sonu came there Vijay gave danda blow on the hand of Sonu and Vijay gave danda blow on the hand and back of his mother.Despite some exaggeration in the testimony of witnesses there is a ring of truth in it and there is no reason to disbelieve their version in entirety.Though the plea of the appellants as noted above is of false implication and of alibi however, no defence evidence has been led.Further even in the cross-examination though it has been suggested that they have been falsely implicated it has not been suggested that the appellants were not present at the spot.It is trite law that a plea of alibi has to be proved by the defence though not beyond reasonable doubt but by preponderance of probability either by leading defence evidence or through cross-examination of the witnesses.However, this plea has not been proved by the defence as per the requirement of law.As per the MLC of Mannu Dev Ex.PW-16/A there are three contused lacerated wound over the scalp of the deceased.The fact that only Devi Singh was having iron pipe and the rest were having the dandas is proved Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 5 of 7 from the recovery made at the instance of the accused wherein one iron pipe, two bamboo sticks and one wooden danda have been recovered.As per the opinion of Dr.Abhishek Yadav injury Nos.2 to 5 were possible with the hollow metallic pipe recovered.Thus the iron rod stated by witnesses was a hollow metallic pipe.In the light of the evidence on record, after separating grain from the chaff it would be noticed that all the four accused had gone to the house of Mannu Devi in furtherance to their common intention where injuries were caused and the fatal injury Nos.2 to 5 were from the hollow metallic rod which was in the hand of Devi Singh.T.C.R. be returned.Copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar one for his record and the others to be handed over to the appellants.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 14, 2014 'ga'/'vn' Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 7 of 7Crl.A.Nos.1529/2011 and 580/2012 Page 7 of 7	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,415,370	Appellant Om Prakash and Khushboo are the uncle and aunt of Asha and Appellant Sanjeev, her cousin, son of Om Prakash.The testimony of Rakesh PW 4PW4 Rakesh is the Complainant, maker of the FIR, and the prosecution case unfolds from his complaint.Yogesh, whose parents had passed away, was living in a house adjoining that of PWYogesh was having an affair with Asha, daughter of Appellants Suraj and Maya, resident of C-409, 410, Gokul Puri.About 24-25 days prior to the day of alleged incident Asha along with her mother Maya and maternal aunt (mausi) was passing in front of Yogeshs house, when Asha stated that she would marry Yogesh @ Bhopu and live in his house.On this Maya is stated to have scolded Asha.In the meantime PW4 Rakesh came out.Suraj, Ashas father, also reached there.PW4 Rakesh also called Yogesh outside and asked Asha whether she wanted to marry Yogesh.Asha then stated in the presence of her parents and maternal aunt, "Main Shaadi Karungi to Isi Se Karungi".DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 3 of 41On hearing this Suraj and Maya started beating Maya and the Appellant Suraj threatened Yogesh that if he talked with Asha he would be killed.On 13th June, 2010 at around 10 to 10.30 pm when PW4 returned home from his workplace, Yogesh @ Bhopu told him that he had received a telephonic call from Asha asking him to come to the house of her uncle Om Prakash Saini situated at Indra Prastha Colony, Gali No. 3, C-Block, House No. 101 for talks of marriage.They reached the house of Om Prakash at around 12 midnight to 12.30 am.The door was opened by Om Prakash who called both of them inside.Inside the house Suraj, Maya, Khushboo, Sanjeev s/o Om Prakash and Asha were also present.They started talking and during the said conversation the other side raised the issue of caste stating that they were Saini and Yogesh and PW4 were Jatavs.Thereafter, Om Prakash and Suraj started abusing and manhandling Rakesh and Yogesh.After hearing the noise some neighbours collected outside the house of Om Prakash.Thereafter, Yogesh and PW4 ran out of the house.PW4 ran in the direction in which the van was parked thinking that Yogesh would follow.However, Yogesh ran in the opposite direction.PW 4 noticed that DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 4 of 41 Yogeshs van was also not parked outside the house.He immediately went to the house of Om Prakash where he found a crowd in the street.PW 16 deposed before the trial Court that he was residing at C Block, Gali No. 3, Indraprastha Colony, Burari, Delhi along with his family and engaged in the business of motor parts.On the intervening night of 13th/14th April 2010, at around 12 midnight, PW 16 heard some noise coming from the neighbouring house occupied by Om Prakash and his family.A number of residents from the locality had gathered there and PW 16 also reached there.The main door of the house was closed but not locked.PW 16 entered the house and saw that the Appellant Sanjeev and Suraj were giving beatings to one boy.Sanjeev pushed PW 16 due to which his specs fell down.Appellant Om Prakash stated "Yeh Hamara Ghar Ka Mamala Hai, Aap Log DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 5 of 41 Jaayen".As PW 16 came out of the house of the Appellants, he found that two ladies, Khushboo and Maya, were sitting outside the house.PW 16 clarified that when he entered the house the said two ladies were standing outside and one girl was thrown by Om Prakash on the hand pump.The girl became unconscious.Nobody helped her and she remained lying there.The Appellant Om Prakash again asked PW 16 to leave.After some time the cries which were coming from that house subsided and PW 16 returned to his house.In the morning PW 16 found that the house of Om Prakash was locked from outside.His wife Satyawati (DW 8) informed him that all the five persons who were there on the previous night had gone somewhere on motorcycles and the whereabouts of that boy and girl were not known.PW 16 found an unclaimed red colour Maruti van parked outside the street on the road.Someone informed the police.When the police was inquiring one person named Rakesh (PW 4) met the police officials and informed them about the incident.From PW 4, PW 16 came to know the name of the boy who was beaten and that he was wearing black coloured clothes.When PW 16 entered the house with the police, in the internal room he found the dead bodies of the boy, whom he had seen being beaten by Appellants Sanjeev and Suraj, and of the girl whom he had seen being thrown on the hand pump by the Appellant Om Prakash.PW4 had narrated the events with reference to the approximate time of their occurrence.The time of death given in the two post-mortem reports, coincided with the time immediately after PW4 ran away from the Appellant Om Prakashs house and did not meet Yogesh thereafter.His version was supported by DW8, his wife.Though DW8 was examined as a defence witness to discredit PW16, she corroborated the version of PW16 that there was a commotion in the house of Om Prakash at night and when PW16 entered the house of Appellant he was given a blow due to which his specs broke.The post-mortem report showed the brutal and barbaric manner in which both Yogesh and Asha were murdered.They were tied with putting electric wires around their arms and were electrocuted.PW4 ran in the direction where the van was parked and stopped at a distance from the van.However, Yogesh ran in a different direction.Having waited for Yogesh for a considerable time, and when he did not come, PW4 went home after reaching the main road and taking a TSR as he thought that Yogesh would have reached his house from another direction.PW 4 witness has given the sequence of events along with the approximate time which would show that PW4 and the deceased Yogesh reached the house of the Appellant Om Prakash at around 12 to 12.30 am and thereafter had a discussion.It is thus apparent that PW4 reached his house a few hours past midnight and obviously went off to sleep.He got up in the morning at around 8 am.PW 4 has clarified that he slept till late.On waking up he found that Yogesh had not reached his house.So PW 4 went to the house of Om Prakash at Swaroop Nagar.It will be recalled that neither the keys of the van were with PW 4, nor did he know driving.Therefore, in order to save himself, PW 4 went outside and waited at a distance.Rather his version that he was present at night with Yogesh at the house of Om Prakash is reinforced by the fact that on coming to know that Yogesh had not reached home at night DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 10 of 41 and finding that the van was also not there, PW 4 immediately rushed to Swaroop Nagar to the house of Om Prakash where he found a crowd and the dead bodies in the house of Om Prakash.Had PW 4 not gone to the house of Om Prakash the previous night there was no way it would have occurred to him to go the house of Om Prakash to find out about Yogesh.It is but natural that on hearing the noise in the house of Om Prakash, he was one of the persons who reached Om Prakashs house.Though the defence examined DW8, the wife of PW16, to discredit him she, in fact, corroborated his version.In her testimony DW8 has stated that her husband was a habitual drunkard and on the date of murder he had consumed liquor at about 4 pm.He was kept inside the house.In the night when PW 16 heard loud noise coming from the house of Om Prakash, he DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 11 of 41 went outside and entered the house of Om Prakash along with 4-5 other persons, but she did not know the names of those 4-5 persons.Somebody hit PW 16 due to which his spectacles broke.Thereafter DW 8 took PW 16 from the house of Om Prakash, bolted the door and went to sleep.Thus DW8 confirmed the presence of PW16 inside the house of Om Prakash after the noise started coming.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 11 of 41The testimony of PW16 is also assailed on the ground that despite the fact he was an alleged eye witness no FIR was registered at his instance.PW14 on whose call to PCR DD No. 7B was recorded has stated that in the morning of 14th June, 2010 he was told by PW 16 and some other public persons that a quarrel took place at night in the house of Om Prakash wherein a boy and a girl were beaten.While the police were making inquiries, two witnesses i.e. PW4 Rakesh and PW16 Umesh were available to them.PW16 Umesh was a witness to the beating of the girl and boy at night whereas PW4 Rakesh knew about all the preceding facts.Further, the purpose of recording FIR is only to set the investigation into motion.Further PW16 is also a witness to the seizures done from the spot.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 12 of 41PW16 has stated that he saw Om Prakash throwing the girl at the hand pump.SI PW19 ASI Krishan Kumar has stated that on 14 th June, 2010 at about 8.00 AM he received DD No. 7B to the effect that "IP Colony, Gali No. 20, C Block, Kathia Baba Ashram Ke Paas Kal Raat Jhagda Huwa Tha.Makaan Band Hai.Ghar Ke Saamne Ek Gaadi No. DL 2C M 6133 Laawaris Khadi Hai".He reached at the spot, found a crowd there and was informed that there was quarrel at House No. C-101, Gali No. 3, IP Colony.PW 19 was also informed that all the residents had gone to some unknown place early morning after putting a lock on the house.The residents stated that it did not belong to that area.PW 19 then called the SHO.On the SHO reaching the spot, PW 19 was instructed to enter the house through the roof.When he reached inside the House No. 101, in the last room he found two dead bodies, one of a boy and other of a girl lying on the floor.Thereafter, the lock of the house was broken open and the lock was seized.Besides the two dead bodies, the police found some electrical wires lying underneath the bed, one mobile phone near the dead body, one mobile phone DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 13 of 41 on the top of the fridge, and one key ring having two keys was lying near the male dead body.When they came outside Umesh met them and told them about the scuffle on the previous night.PW14 ACP Pankaj Kumar Singh and PW19 ASI Krishan Kumar have both stated that when they went inside the house they found two dead bodies lying with their faces downwards, heads towards the wall and feet towards bed.On inspection of dead bodies of the boy and the girl they found round burnt marks above the left arm and above the ankle of the left leg.They also found marks from beating on the bodies.At the spot two black coloured and two yellow and red coloured electric wires, with some part of the rubber insulation peeled off from the black wires, were seized.A Nokia mobile phone was also lying near the dead body of Yogesh which was in a switched off condition.It was identified by Rakesh to be that of Yogesh.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 14 of 41The postmortem of the body of the deceased Yogesh was conducted by PW12 Dr. Sudesh Kumar.As per the postmortem report Ex.PW12/A injuries 1 to 3 were caused by electric current, injury no. 4 was caused by a blunt cylindrical weapon and injuries No. 5 to 7 were caused by the impact of blunt force.It was opined that electro thermal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.All injuries were consistent with the beatings/assault.The cause of death was opined to be cardiac fibrillation and respiratory failure, as a result of electrocution.Injury 4 was possible by the PVC pipe in packet no. 3 or a similar such object.Injuries 5, 6 and 7 were possibly caused by the wooden pieces in Packet No. 1 or similar such things.He exhibited his subsequent opinion as PW12/B.In his cross-examination PW12 also stated that when a naked wire came in contact with skin and is used for electrocution, the same would turn black and in the present case he found that open ends of the wire which were in DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 15 of 41 touch with the skin were black.Injuries 6, 7 and 8 were caused by the fastening of hand and feet with the help of a rope and wire.PW 17 further opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the time since death was approximately 38 hours.Vide Ex.PW17/B he gave the subsequent opinion that the injury 1 could have been caused by yellow colour electric wire, injuries 2, 4 and 5 could have been caused by wooden piece in packet No. 1, PVC pipe in packet no. 3 or similar such thing and injuries 6, 7 and 8 could have been caused by black wire in packet no. 2 and was consistent with fastening.It is thus evident from the testimony of these witnesses that Yogesh and Asha died due to electrocution and were given blunt injuries before electrocution.The time since death was 38 hours.This also corroborates the version of PW4 that the incident happened after he left and the version of PW16 on the night he saw Yogesh and Asha being beaten.Recovery at the instance of the accusedPW13 ACP Pankaj Kumar Singh, the investigating officer has stated that DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 17 of 41 he along with Inspector Satender Dhull PW24, SI Suresh PW26 and the complainant Rakesh left for the search of the accused.In the present case two dead bodies were found lying in the house of Om Prakash, Khushboo and Sanjeev.The house was locked from outside and the lock was broken open by the police.The key of the house was got recovered from the Appellant Sanjeev.Once the house was locked from outside and the DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.Criminal Appeals No. 105, 156, 274, 288 and 460 of 2013 arise out of the impugned judgment dated 1st October 2012 of the learned Additional Session Judge in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2010 whereby all the five Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302/323/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 5th October, 2012 awarding each of the Appellants the death DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 2 of 41 sentence.By the Death Reference No. 5/2012 the State has sought confirmation of the death sentence.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 2 of 41The Appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having murdered Yogesh and Asha in furtherance of their common intention on the 14th June, 2010 between 1 and 5 am at House No. C-101, Gali No. 3 I.P. Colony, Delhi.The Appellants Suraj and Maya are the parents of the deceased Asha.The keys of the van were with Yogesh and PW4 did not know how to drive.PW4 stopped at a distance from the van and waited for Yogesh.After waiting for a considerable amount of time, when Yogesh did not arrive, PW 4 thought that Yogesh might have returned home by another way.Therefore, Rakesh PW 4 came to the main road, hired a TSR and reached home.The next morning PW 4 woke up and went to Yogeshs house and called him.Yogeshs aunt, who used to reside on the ground floor, stated that Yogesh had not returned home the previous night.He was informed that in the night a boy and a girl had been murdered there.PW 4 has proved his statement Ex. PW4/A on the basis of which FIR was registered.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 4 of 41Mr. Sumeet Verma, Mr. Joginder Tuli and Ms. Anu Narula, learned counsels for the Appellants, have assailed the testimony of PW4 on the ground that he was not an eye witness.If indeed PW 4 was with Yogesh it was not natural for him to have left Yogesh and run away.There was material improvement in the testimony of PW 4 in as much as in the FIR he had not stated that the issue of caste was raised.However, before the trial Court, PW 4 stated that during the conversation the other side had raised the issue of caste.Thus the testimony of PW 4 could not be relied upon.The testimony of Umesh PW 16Besides PW4, another material prosecution witness is PW16 Umesh Kumar.PW 16 also stated that in his presence the police lifted the electric wire, one danda in broken condition, one plastic pipe which was about three feet in length, one piece of floor.PW 16 also identified his signatures on the seizure memos.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 5 of 41Submissions of counsel for the AppellantsThe testimony of PW 16 has been assailed by the Appellants on the ground that he is an introduced witness.Even though PW 16 was an eye DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 6 of 41 witness and available on the spot prior to Rakesh PW 4 reaching the spot, the FIR was not recorded on his statement but on the statement of PW4 Rakesh.Further, PW 16 was not a reliable witness as his wife DW8 has herself stated that PW 16 was a drunkard.Moreover in his cross-examination, PW16 admitted that he did not witness the seizure of the blood stained underwear and the keys of the Maruti van though he had signed the seizure memos.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 6 of 41Besides challenging the statements of PWs 4 and 16, learned counsel for the Appellants have submitted that the Appellants plea of alibi which has not been duly considered by the learned trial Court.Their conviction was based entirely on the testimonies of PWs 4 and 16 who were not reliable witnesses.The weapons of offence were not recovered.The electric wires, sanitary pipe and danda recovered at the spot were all planted.It is stated that the Appellants Suraj and Om Prakash allegedly got recovered a pair of ropes from Ashram.However, the present case was not one of strangulation of either of the two deceased.Therefore, the said recovery did not relate to the offence committed.As regards the precise role of Appellants Khushboo and Maya, learned counsel appearing for them pointed out that even according to PW16, they were standing outside and did not participate in the alleged offence and thus they could not been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC as no act in furtherance of a common intention was done by them.The finding of the learned trial Court that the two ladies were standing on vigil was unfounded as the two ladies did not make any effort to stop PW 16 or other persons from entering the house.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.Embedded electrical wires were found in the arms of both the deceased.PWs 14 and 19 also spoke about the commotion at the house of Appellant Om Prakash.PW14 had called the Police by making a call at 100 number.Relying upon the decision in Ratan Singh v. State of H.P. (1997) 4 SCC 161 DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 8 of 41 it was submitted by Mr. Sawhney that minor improvements in the testimony of the witnesses do not affect their credibility.Further, the version of eye- witness PW16 was corroborated by PW4 and DD No. 7A.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 8 of 41Commenting on the role of Maya and Khushboo, Mr. Sawhney submitted that even an illegal omission would attract Section 34 IPC.From the evidence on record it is apparent that Appellant Khushboo and Maya deliberately refrained from saving the deceased and thus there is no illegality in the order of learned Trial Court convicting both of them for offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.The doctor who conducted post- mortem had given an opinion that the injuries were possible with the plastic rod recovered from the spot.The testimony of the defence witnesses speaking about the presence of Appellants Maya, Khushboo and Sanjeev at the sister-in-laws house in relation to her grandsons birthday was wholly unbelievable.The defence witness DW1 Jai Narain could not prove the alibi of Appellants Om Prakash and Suraj.An adverse inference was required to be drawn against the Appellants under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the two dead bodies were found in their house which was found locked.The key of the house was recovered from Appellant Sanjeev.In analyzing the evidence, the Court would first like to deal with the various circumstances as sought to be established by the prosecution.The DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 9 of 41 conduct of PW4 is assailed to be unnatural on the ground that he left his brother-in-law Yogesh at the spot, came back alone and slept without checking whether the deceased Yogesh had returned or not.It is stated that PW4 is a planted witness and was not a witness who had seen the deceased Yogesh and Asha last in the company of the Appellants.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 9 of 41A perusal of the testimony of PW4 demonstrates that while Om Prakash and Suraj were abusing Rakesh and Yogesh, they started manhandling them as well.On this, Rakesh and Yogesh ran out of the house.However, the two ran in opposite directions.Nothing has been elicited from PW 4 in his cross-examination that would throw any doubt on the veracity of his version.The Court is of the view that evidence of PW 4 fully proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the night of the occurrence, the deceased Asha and Yogesh were last seen in the company of the accused till the time PW 4 left the spot.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 10 of 41Eye witnesses' evidenceHe has stated that in the mid night of 13th /14th June 2010, there was noise in the house of Om Prakash and on hearing this many people collected at the spot.PW 16 found Maya and Khushboo standing outside.The door was closed but not locked.He went inside and saw Om Prakash hitting Asha and throwing her on the hand pump.He saw Suraj and Sanjeev beating Yogesh.PW16 is a neighbor of Appellant Om Prakash, residing in the vicinity.Thus when two witnesses were available to the police, no error can be said to be committed by the police in registering the FIR on the statement of one of them, i.e., Rakesh and recording the statement of Umesh immediately thereafter under Section 161 Cr PC.During the seizures done at the spot a bunch of hair were seized from the hand pump and as per the FSL report the said bunch of hair matched with the hair of deceased Asha thereby corroborating the version of PW16 that girl Asha was thrown on the hand pump.Hence from the evidence on record the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellants Om Prakash, Suraj and Sanjeev were beating both the deceased Yogesh and Asha on the intervening night of 13th/14thJune, 2010 when Maya and Khushboo were standing outside.Scene of OccurrenceIn the meantime, Rakesh also came and informed them about the entire incident of the previous night, of how he had come with his brother-in-law Yogesh who had not reached home and thus he had come back again to find out about Yogesh.Rakesh was taken inside; he identified the body of the boy as that of Yogesh and the body of girl as that of Asha.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 13 of 41Seizures from the SpotOne blood soaked underwear was also lying at the spot.One screw driver having a U shape bent on one side with yellow insulation was found entangled with the string of the Salwar of Asha which was also seized.About 8-10 broken pieces of dandas were lying in the gallery, which were also seized.Some plastic sanitary pipes fitted with metallic sanitary fitting were also found DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 14 of 41 lying in the gallery and were also seized.Some hair found entangled in the base of hand pump installed just outside the house was also seized.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death was homicidal.PW12 also opined that the time since death was 38 hours.The postmortem on the body of Yogesh was conducted on 15th June, 2010 at 4 pm.PW12 also opined that the injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused by black wire in packet no. 2 and was consistent with fastening.Injury 3 could have been caused by the yellow and red electric wire.During the postmortem he found the wire wrapped on the right arm of the deceased.They were all black wires and one double core wire of red and yellow with exposed ends which were removed from the body before the postmortem.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 15 of 41Dr. V.K. Jha PW17 conducted the post-mortem on deceased Asha and exhibited his report as Ex. PW17/A. He found the following injuries on Asha:1. Lacerated punctured wound over inner aspect of right forearm just below the elbow joint of size 1 CM X 1 CM, margins were blackened and hard to palpate with dept of wound was 0.5 CM creating a crater of grayish colour.No blood was oozing from the wound (electric burn marks and entry wound of the current).Rail road pattern bruise 6 CM X 2 CM with two parallel reddish line and intermediate skin was pale, placed over left arm lower outer aspect.Two parallel reddish lines were raised.Lacerated perforated electric burn mark, margin were irregular and everted 1.5 CM X 1 CM, colour brownish black (exit wound of electric current).The injuries located above outer aspect of left arm, just above the elbow joint.Brownish coloured defused bruise over left thigh and left leg.Brownish coloured diffuse wound over right thigh and right leg.Circular bruise 1 CM in width surrounding the upper part of wrist joint of left side.Semicircular bruise with abrasion on outer aspect of right forearm, just above the writ joint.Circular bruise abrasion encircling the lower end of leg, just above the ankle joint 1 CM in width and similar bruise DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 16 of 41 with abrasion on right lower end of right leg, just above the ankle joint.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 16 of 41Both lips were contused at muco-cutaneous junction.PW 17 opined that the cause of death of Asha was a sudden cardiac arrest and the cessation of respiration due to respiratory muscle paralysis consequent to electric current, passing through the chest.He also opined that Injuries 2, 4 and 5 were caused by a hard blunt object, in particular a straight circular object like a lathi and danda.On the pointing of Rakesh at Swaroop Nagar, Burari Road, Suraj and Om Prakash were arrested.After their arrest they made disclosure statements.On the pointing of both the accused towards the bushes, beneath the Keekar tree, outside the Ashram, a yellow polythene lying was taken out.The polythene contained a rope made of jute measuring 13 meters.The same was seized, however this rope was not shown to the post-mortem doctors and no opinion qua the same has been taken whether any of the injuries was possible by the said rope.Thus, the recovery of rope at the instance of the Appellant Suraj and Om Prakash cannot be used in evidence as the same is not connected with the injuries received by the two deceased.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 17 of 41Plea of Alibi of Maya, Khushboo and SanjeevAll the 5 Appellants have pleaded alibi.The plea of alibi of Maya is based on the evidence of DWs 4, 5 and 6 i.e. Shakuntala, Lokesh and Naresh.DW4 Shakuntala has stated that Suraj and Om Prakash are her brothers and Maya and Khushboo their wives.Sanjeev is the son of Om Prakash and her nephew.She further stated that on 16th June, 2010 at about 12 Noon or 1pm she received a call from Ramwati telling that Asha had died and asked Khushboo and Sanjeev to reach there.According to DW 4, Maya had already left DW 4s house on 13 th June, 2010 at about 7 pm after giving clothes to her grandson.Maya is stated to have gone from there to Aurangabad to the house of her brother.This fact is also reiterated by the DW5 Lokesh, nephew of Shakuntala and DW6 DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 18 of 41 Naresh, son of Shakuntala.Both have stated that she left within 10 to 15 minutes.No defense witness has been brought from Aurangabad, to show that Maya went there from the house of Shakuntala.Thus, the plea of alibi of Maya has not been proved.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 18 of 41The families are close enough to be celebrating the birthday of the outstation grandchildren together.Moreover, the photographs have not been proved in accordance with law.They do not have any date and time.Thus, there is no substance in the plea of alibi of Appellants Khushboo and Sanjeev.Plea of alibi of Om Prakash and SurajOm Prakash and Suraj have produced DW2 Satpal who stated that Om Prakash and Suraj were working with him for the last 4 to 5 years.He sowed DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 19 of 41 Pudina, Beetroot and radish.The work used to start at 10 pm or 10.30 pm and used to continue up to 8 am.According to this witness on 14 th June, 2010 in the morning, the police came to enquire about Om Prakash and took them saying that some inquiry was to be conducted.DW 2 further stated that on 13th June, 2010 Om Prakash and Suraj came to him at 11 pm.DW 2 is not the seller of vegetables in the mandi but sows Pudina, Beetroot and Radish.In answer to the Courts question DW 2 stated that Suraj and Om Prakash did not come to their work place in the subzi mandi after he started maintaining the diary.Though DW2 states that on 13th June, 2010 they came about 11 pm, DW1 Jai Narain has stated that on 13th June, 2010 at 10 pm he had given money to Suraj to buy potatoes for him which he brought.Thus, the Appellants Suraj and Om Prakash have also not been able to prove the plea of alibi.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 19 of 41A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 20 of 41 keys were in possession of one of the Appellants, how two dead bodies were there in the house has to be explained by the Appellants.In the statement under Section 313 Cr PC, the Appellants have failed to give any explanation.The plea of alibi set up by the defence has not been proved and hence the non-explanation by the Appellants as to how the two dead bodies were found in their house is an additional link in the chain of circumstances.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 20 of 41It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the dead bodies of Yogesh and Asha were found in the house of Appellant Om Prakash and Sanjeev and the house was locked from outside.The prosecution has discharged its initial burden and since the incident happened in the house at night and the house was locked from outside, the Appellants are required to furnish an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In Tulshiram Sahadu Wanshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 373 while dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court observed:"A fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts.When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as to the most probable position.It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened.In that process, the courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case.Section 106 however is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 21 of 41 of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, has offered an explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference."DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 21 of 41PW4 has deposed about the incident which occurred 20-25 days ago prior to 14th June, 2010 when Asha expressed her desire to marry Yogesh by stating "Main Shaadi Karungi to Isi Se Karungi" and how for saying that she was beaten by her parents.The Appellant Suraj also threatened Yogesh that he would kill him in case he talked to Asha.PW4 has deposed that on the fateful night when he reached his home at around 10 to 10.30 pm his brother- in-law Yogesh told Rakesh that he had been called by parents of Asha for his marriage and after having dinner they left at around 11.30 pm and reached the place of occurrence at around 12 to 12.30 am, i.e., past midnight.When they reached there and were talking, the Appellants raised the issue of caste that they were Sainis and the family of Yogesh was Jatav.Such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened, or to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events that took place.The person who furnishes the first DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 22 of 41 information report to authorities might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story.An FIR is a voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation.Hence any omission therein has to be considered along with the other elements to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.He was not required to state in the FIR each and every detail of the discussion that took place.He has, however, stated that there were discussions and thereafter Om Prakash and Suraj started abusing and manhandling them and they ran away.Further, the motive in the present case is that the Appellants were against the marriage alliance between Yogesh and Asha, which fact has been elucidated by the complainant in detail in the FIR itself.The different castes of the two families was only a reason for their being opposed to the marriage.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 23 of 41The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a commotion in the house of Appellant on the intervening night of 13 th/14th June, 2010 and two dead bodies were lying in their house.The plea of alibi set up by the Appellants has not been proved even on a preponderance of probabilities.Rather the factum of abscondence has been proved.The Appellants took no step to report the unnatural death of at least their daughter Asha.It is highly unnatural that PW5 Smt. Ramwati, the aunt of deceased Asha would take her dead body and inform her parents and cousin about the death only on 16th June.He has stated that when he entered the house Maya and Khushboo were standing outside.When he came out of the house after being beaten by Sanjeev and admonished by Om Prakash, he found Maya and Khushboo sitting outside.However, PW 16 did not attribute any overt act to them.PW4 Rakesh in his testimony has stated that when he went to the house, all the 5 Appellants were present.However, he too has also not attributed any overt act to Maya and Khushboo.It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that in the absence of an overt act being attributed to them, Khushboo and Maya cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.The two ladies could be thus at best be said to be spectators to what was being done by the three men in the house.No doubt, as a mother and aunt there was an omission on their part to have not saved at least Asha their daughter, however the said omission does not qualify the test that they shared the common intention with the three men to commit the murder of Yogesh and Asha, thus attracting Section 34 IPC.In Sumitra Banik v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 2594, the Supreme Court acquitted the Appellant therein as the only evidence against her was that she was standing near the door of the room wherein the deceased was killed.It was held that no inference of common intention could be drawn only on the ground that she did not prevent other accused from beating her in view of the relationship with her.In Kakko v. State of Haryana 1997 SCC (Crl) 835, the allegations against the Appellant therein were of being at the spot armed with an axe.Since there was no evidence that she actually participated in the crime, she was acquitted of the charge of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 25 of 41Conclusion as regards the guilt of the AppellantsBoth the deceased were electrocuted after being tied with ropes.In light of the legal position discussed above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the convicted Appellants Om Prakash and Suraj are awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life which will not be less than 20 years actual.Since Appellant Sanjeev DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 40 of 41 is a young man who was not married, the Court considers it fit to sentence him to imprisonment of life subject to remissions as available.DSR No. 5 of 2012, Crl.A. Nos. 105, 156, 274, 288 & 460 of 2013 Page 40 of 41	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,464,243	The undisputed facts are that on 2-11-1982 at about 5 O'clock in the day time, while the claimant was going on a bicycle from Harsood to village Sadiyaoani a truck coming from opposite direction, suddenly crossed, hitting him with such a force on his left arm that his left hand was instantaneously chopped off at the place of the accident.It cannot be disputed that amputation of his left hand has disabled him all his life from earning up to his maximum efficiency if he would have been able bodied.ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) by the claimant/appellant against the order dated 7-12-1984 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Nimar (Khandwa), whereby his claim was totally rejected on the ground that he failed to prove that Truck No. C.P.D. 8147, driven, owned and insured by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, was involved in the accident.The claimant's case was that Madhukar Rao (P.W.5), who was also passing by, soon after the accident helped the claimant in rushing him first to the Police Station and immediately thereafter to the hospital.According to the claimant, who was examined before the Claims Tribunal as A.W.I, he had noted the number of the truck as C.P.D. 8147 and had reported the same in the Police Station.D-2 in the case.The claimant examined in support of his version Madhukar Rao (A.W.5), who had rushed him from the place of the accident to the police station and the hospital.The claimant also examined Mohan Singh Rawat, Sub-Inspector of Police, as A.W.3, who had made investigation in relation to the accident for alleged offences of rash and negligent driving Under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code.The above Sub-Inspector in the course of investigation has recorded the statement of the owner of the truck Omprakash s/o Manohar Lal (respondent No. 2 in this appeal).The Criminal Case could not proceed as the driver of the said truck Ramsingh, respondent No. 1, is reported to be absconding.In his statement made to the police, (a certified copy of which is on record as Ex.P-3), Omprakash admitted that driver of the truck on his return on 2-11-1982 had admitted that the truck was involved in the accident.The case of the respondents was of complete denial that truck No. C.P.D. 8147 was involved in the said accident.The owner of the truck was examined before the Tribunal as N.A.W.3 who denied to have given any statement as recorded in Ex.P-3 of his truck being involved in the said incident.He, on the contrary, took a plea that the truck on the fateful day was engaged by some other party on some other route, far away from the place of the accident.The Claims Tribunal by its order under appeal disbelieved the testimony of the claimant, Gokul Prasad (A.W.I) and Madhukar Rao (A.W.5) that they had noted the truck number.In disbelieving the testimony of the above two witnesses the Tribunal was mainly influenced by he fact that in the information recorded by the police there is no mention of the truck number and therefore, it could not be believed that the witnesses had known the truck number and mentioned it to the police.With respect to the statement recorded, during investigation by the police, of the truck owner Omprakash, evidenced by Ex.P-3, the Claims Tribunal held that the said statement could only be used for the purpose of contradiction and could not be relied upon as an independent piece of evidence.(See para 24 of the order of the Claims Tribunal).In the manner aforesaid the Claims Tribunal dismissed the whole claim holding that it was not proved that the truck in question of the respondents was involved in the accident.Learned counsel appearing for the claimant in this appeal first made an attempt to convince me that the testimony of Gokul Prasad (A.W.I) and Madhukar Rao (A.W.5) should be believed that they had noted the truck number.This argument has not at all appealed to me.It is most unlikely that after a sudden collision the claimant was so much alert to note the truck number.Similarly, Madhukar Rao (A.W.5) who rushed him to the hospital cannot also be believed that he noted the truck number, because if it was so, it was most unlikely that he would not have mentioned that number to the police and the police would have omitted to record the same in the first information report.I had refixed the case for further arguments on the above question on 8-12-1990 and the learned counsel for the claimant invited my attention to the order sheet of the Claims Tribunal dated 22-12-1983 which shows that on the application of the claimant Under Order 13, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, record of Criminal Case No. 539 of 1982, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harsood, was summoned for proving the certified copies obtained from that Court.The Claims Tribunal had allowed that application.It is, therefore, now clear that the original case diary of the police in which the statement (Ex.P-3) was recorded of the truck owner Omprakash was summoned by the Claims Tribunal which was put to the Sub-Inspector Mohan Singh Rawat (A.W.3), who stated the certified copies to be corrected on the basis of original.The same, original and the certified copy was confronted to the truck owner Omprakash (N.A.W.3).It is the, case of the claimants that he has made an admission against his own interest in the statement before the police and they have proved the statement by examining the Investigation Officer as P.W.4 in the case.The admission is marked and admitted into evidence as Ext.P-6 is a very clear and unambiguous admission of the owner that it was the truck the number of which is mentioned in the petition that caused the accident, that it was his cleaner who was driving the truck at the relevant time and that the truck dashed against the deceased Narayanasa and killed him on the spot.P-3 in the testimony of Mohan Singh (A.W.3) that it was truck bearing No. C.P.D.-8147 owned by the respondent No. 2, Omprakash, involved in the accident.Having thus held that it was the truck C.P.D.-8147 which was involved in the accident, the next question is whether the respondents can be held liable to pay compensation and to what extent.The manner in which the accident has taken place and the fact that the driver of the truck has absconded and the owner has denied the involvement of his vehicle, the principle of res ipsa loquitur has to be applied to the case.The thrust of the vehicle was so great that the claimant lost his one hand which was chopped off instantaneously.The last question remains as to what should be the quantum of the compensation.To me it would be too harsh, now after so many years, to remand the case to the Tribunal for determining the compensation.The accident took place as back as in the year 1982 and the Tribunal having dismissed his claim the claimant has not been paid anything.I would, therefore, proceed to fix the quantum of compensation in the appeal itself.For the remaining part of his life he will have to suffer a serious physical handicap which is bound to reduce his earning.Taking the totality of the circumstances and also keeping in view the conventional figures for such an injury, in my opinion, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- would be just and fair compensation which the respondents are liable to pay to the appellant/claimant.The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is hereby allowed.The order of the Claims Tribunal dated 7-12-1984 is hereby set aside.	['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,436,572	She was running a shop in the premises of Panchyat.The Sarpanch wanted to illegally evict the applicant, therefore, he has falsely implicated her.The complainant Suresh, the Sarpanch of the village Panchyat, Jhalon filed a report in the Police Station, Tendukhera mentioning therein that he went to Janpad Office at Tendukhera for office work.In the meanwhile, he received a phone call of his son, Virendra and then he came to village, Jhalon immediately.When Suresh reached village Jhalon, the present applicant alongwith other cu- accused started beating him and threatened him of dire consequences.Thus, the applicant and other co- accused obstructed in doing the official work.C.C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE bks Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Date: 31/08/2019 10:34:37A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.	['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
146,438	The prosecution case, as unfolded from the F.I.R. and evidence adduced in the Court may be set forth briefly.The incident occurred on 22-8-1979 at about 12 O'clock noon in village Rahnas, P.S. Mahrajpur, District Kanpur and the deceased was one Pramod Kumar alias Lalji.The F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 1.30 p.m. by Swami Pratap Singh alias Gopal Ji PW-1, an eyewitness.The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 3 miles.The deceased was the brother of the informant.On the fateful day and time, the informant and his deceased brother were in their house when their servant came and told that Jagnayak Singh had beaten up Jhandu, Pujari of their temple.Their mother asked the deceased to go and find out the facts whereupon Lalji went to the temple which was at a distance of a furlong from their house.It was revealed that Jagnayak Singh wanted to give Rs. 10/- to the wife of Jhandu with mischievous intention and Jhandu objected to it.Thereupon he was beaten up by Jagnayak Singh.When Lalji was returning from the temple to the house, in the way he happened to meet Jagnayak Singh and appellant Daljeet Singh in front of the house of Jahan Singh.An altercation took place between them.Jagnayak and appellant Daljeet Singh issued threats to Lalji that they would see him.Lalji returned to the house and told the facts to his mother.A little later when Lalji came out to go to his Dera, he was followed by the informant.While Lalji was on his way, he was fired at by the appellant Daljeet Singh by country made pistol and Jagnayak Singh opened fire on him from the licensed gun of his father from the roof of his house which was across the open space.Lalji sustained injuries, fell down and died at the spot.The incident was witnessed by Chunnu PW-2 and others besides the informant.The informant took the dead body of his brother on the cot to his house and then went to the police station where he lodged the F.I.R. The police swung in action.The investigation was taken up by S.C. Mehta PW-4 who was the then Station Officer of P.S. Mahrajpur.He came to the spot.Reaching the spot, he busied himself with the activities related to the investigation and sent the dead body for post-mortem after preparation of inquest report.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.He has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. A.K. Gupta.PW-5 on 23-8-1979 at 2 p.m. The deceased was aged about 30 years and about one day had passed since he died.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular with blackening and tattooing present around, margins inverted, on the right of upper arm.12 cm below the top of right shoulder.Direction downwards and outward and communicating with exit wound, 1.5 cm x 1 cm x oval, margins everted on outer aspect of middle part right arm.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular with inverted margins with blackening and tattooing present around on the upper part of right arm; 5 cm below the top of right shoulder.Direction downwards and laterally and was communicating the exit wound, 1 cm x 1.5 cm on the outer aspect of right arm, 14 cm from the top of shoulder.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular with blackening and tattooing present around with inverted margins on the right side of upper part of chest just below the right clavicle on mid clavicular line directed downwards.4. 2 gunshot wounds of entry 2.5 cm x 1 cm in an area each of size 1 cm x 1 cm with blackening and tattooing present around with inverted margins on the upper part of right chest, 4 cm from the upper part of sternum.It was chest cavity deep.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular, inverted margins, on upper right part of chest, blackening and tattooing present, 8 cm below the right sternum and 6 cm above the lower margins of sternum.Directions downwards and backwards and chest cavity deep.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular, inverted margins with tattooing and blackening on right side of chest on the right axillary line, 13 from the axilla.Gunshot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm circular with inverted margins on the lower part of left chest, 10 cm below the left nipple, backwards at the level of back of chest.Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 1.25 cm x oval with everted margins on the back of left chest 12 cm, 11 cm below the lower end of left scapula.Exit gunshot wound 1 cm x 1.5 cm oval with everted margins on the back of right chest upper part, 6 cm from the spine.Exit gunshot wound 1 cm x 1.5 cm, oval with everted margins on the back of lower part of right chest, 16 cm from lower end of right scapula.Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 1.5 cm with everted margins, oval on the back of lower part of right chest, 6 cm from the spine.The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained by the deceased.Two pellets were found on the back right side chest embedded in the muscles.The defence was of denial.According to the accused appellant, he was in the house of Jagnayak Singh on the day of occurrence when the firing took place.Jagnayak Singh came running to the house as Lalji and 15 other persons chased him.From the house, Jagnayak Singh took the licensed gun of his father and opened shots in the air.Meanwhile, the mob assembled and taking a chance, he ran away from there.The prosecution examined six witnesses.Out of them, Swami Pratap Singh alias Gopal Ji PW-1, Chunnu PW-2 and Chaturi PW-3 professed themselves to be the eye-witnesses.Finding the case to be established to the hilt, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment which has been assailed by the appellant before us.We have heard Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. The record has been summoned which we have also carefully perused.Learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that the trial Court convicted the accused appellant without testing the testimonial assertions of so-called eye-witnesses on the anvil of reliability and in the light of other circumstances of the case emerging on record.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has tried to support the conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant by the Court below.He admitted in his cross-examination that a cross case on the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of Jaghayak Singh was registered and the same had also been investigated by him.That case related to the murder of Jagnayak Singh (said to be one of the assailants of Pramod Kumar alias Lalji).The accused in that case were Uday Bhan, Jagdish Singh and others, totalling fifteen.It also came down from his cross-examination that at the time of inspection he had found bloodstains in the room of upper storey of the house of Jagnayak Singh which he had taken in possession.He had also found the latch of that room to be twisted.It was also stated by him that when he prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of Pramod Kumar alias Lalji in his Haveli at about 5 p.m., there was a big commotion outside the Haveli and he saw a number of persons rushing to the house of Jagnayak Singh.He saw the mob trying to break open the main door of the house.Those persons were aimed with guns, rifles, lathi etc. He tried to reason and converse with them against what they were doing but to no effect.Immediately, he heard 3-4 shots from the roof of Jagnayak Singh.He knocked the door of Jagnayak Singh and after sometime Jagnayak's wife and other women folk opened the door when he assured them that he and persons accompanying him were police personnel.Then the ladies narrated the incident weeping.He also found signs of blood behind the back wall of the house of Jagnayak Singh near Khandhar.There were signs of dragging.At the spot itself, he had come to know that Jagnayak Singh had been killed and his dead body was taken away.He tried at his level best to search his dead body but the same was not found.The Investigating Officer also disclosed that the place where Pramod Kumar was shot dead was the public path.That was the day of fair and thousands of persons were passing that way.Referring to such disclosure made by the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has vehemently argued that this aspect of the matter completely remained obscure that in the present case, Jagnayak Singh was also killed.He reasoned that concealing the reality, the prosecution presented a fabricated version of the incident.We have given our anxious thought to the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellant and find on examination of evidence that it is true that the record is completely silent on this aspect of the matter.True, for the sake of appearance, three eye-witnesses, namely, Swami Pratap Singh, (brother of the deceased) informant PW-1, Chunnu PW-2 and Chaturi PW-3 supported the prosecution case that the appellant Daljeet Singh and Jagnayak Singh had opened fire from the roof of one of them (Jagnayak Singh) on Pramod Kumar alias Lalji who was passing through the way for reaching his Dera.But their testimonial assertions do not answer the test of probability.It is pertinent to state that Swami Pratap Singh PW-1 is the own brother of the deceased and claims that at the time of incident he was following Pramod Kumar Singh who was going to his Dera.The point we wish to make is that in case he was going with his brother, then ordinarily under the circumstances in which Pramod Kumar Singh was shot at receiving so many gunshot injuries, he would have also received some injury.The learned A.G.A. has argued that he escaped unhurt as he was following Pramod Kumar Singh at some distance.We cannot appreciate that there could be any reason for him to follow Pramod Kumar Singh at some distance if he did not intend to accompany him for going to the Dera.Either he would have been going with him side by side or would not have followed him at all.The place of shooting was only 50-60 paces away from the house of this witness and there could hardly be any question of this young man lagging behind his elder brother Pramod Kumar Singh even in covering such a short distance.We also note that in the site plan, the Investigating Officer has shown the distance as about 45 paces of the spot where Pramod Kumar Singh was shot dead from the main door of the house of Jagnayak Singh.The shooting was allegedly made from the roof, meaning thereby that this distance of shooting would increase a little more giving margin for the height of the roof.Truth of the matter, however, is that in the post-mortem report, blackening and tattooing had been found in six out of seven gunshot injuries sustained by the deceased.It was an indicator that the shots had been fired from within a distance of 6 feet.The factual position as regards the distance found by the Investigating Officer at the spot, in fact, renders the ocular account to be in conflict with the medical evidence.It is also noted that Chunnu PW-2 and Chaturi PW-3 were chance witnesses.Both of them gave trumpery reasons for being present at the spot.The former stated that he was sitting at the Chabutra outside the house of Lalji as he had gone to borrow some diesel from him.Chaturi PW-3 stated that he was sitting at the Chabutra of Lalji having gone there to borrow Rs. 10/- from him.The reasons assigned by both of them do not sound to be plausible and convincing.It appears as if they were fumbling for some justification to show their presence at the spot to pose as eye-witnesses.A falsehood would not be converted into truth if repeated by a number of persons in a parrot-like manner who pose themselves as eye-witnesses of an incident.A suggestion was made to Swami Pratap Singh PW-1 in his cross-examination that the appellant Daljeet Singh was the guest of Jagnayak Singh and was staying in his house as such on that day and that when Jagnayak Singh was chased and attacked, he somehow escaped.Of course, he denied this suggestion.But it seems to be nearer to truth on being judged in the light of attending circumstances.Appellant Daljeet Singh is the resident of village Ramua, P.S. Thariyawan, district Fatehpur.His statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was also in line of such suggestion.The charge-sheet of the present case also records that the other accused of the felony, namely, Jagnayak Singh was murdered the same evening.It should be recalled that the background of the incident was that Jagnayak Singh offered Rs. 10/- to the wife of Jhandu Pujari with mischievous intention and beat him up when he objected to it.Pramod Kumar Singh was told about all this when he had gone to the temple to enquire as to what the matter was.While returning home from the temple, he had altercation with Jagnayak Singh on the above count.Ordinarily, it could be Jagnayak Singh only to have felt annoyed for having been questioned by Pramod Kumar Singh.The appellant was not in the picture regarding this episode of offer of Rs. 10/- by Jagnayak Singh to the wife of Pujari of the temple.Blackening and tattooing having been found in six out of seven gunshot wounds of entry sustained by the deceased, he must have been fired at from a close range of within 6 feet.The incident took place in the way and after shooting Pramod Kumar Singh, Jagnayak Singh rushed inside his house.As a reaction to the ghastly murder of Pramod Kumar Singh committed by Jagnayak Singh in broad day light on the public way, a number of persons, presumably supporters of the family of the deceased, assembled with the deadly weapons, chased him (Jagnayak Singh) inside his house to his roof top.They not only murdered him but also took away his body.The murder of Jagnayak Singh was seemingly committed in condemnable retaliatory reaction.Since it was known that the appellant was also there in the house of Jagnayak Singh on that day, he was also nominated as one of the shooters of the deceased, namely, Pramod Kumar Singh.A careful analysis of record including testimony of Investigating Officer Satish Chandra Mehta leads to the only conclusion that the alleged participation of the appellant Daljeet Singh in shooting Pramod Kumar Singh is wholly doubtful.In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the alleged participation of the appellant Daljeet Singh in this crime is not proved according to the standard required.He, therefore, deserves to be afforded the benefit of doubt.	['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.
129,018,584	"The complainant Smt. Neelima Devi, gave a statement on 30.09.2013 that her younger daughter aged about fourteen years, had gone to her school in Crl.LP 627/2015 Page 1 of 17 the morning at about 6.30 AM, but she has failed to return back home.They made a search for her, but have not been able to trace her.On the complaint FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered.Investigations were carried by SI Sandeep Mann.The complainant informed the investigating officer that their earlier tenant Kuldeep kumar may have taken away her daughter.A search was made for kuldeep and he was found to be a resident of Gola Bazaar, Mainpuri, UP.Suraj, friend of accused Kuldeep came to the police station on 05.10.2013 and informed that about three four days back, the prosecutrix had borrowed his phone and talked to the accused and that he suspected that the prosecutrix was with the accused.On this information, SI Sandeep Mann along with constable Sandeep and W/Const.Indu Bala went to the house of the accused at Mainpuri and recovered the prosecutrix from his house.The prosecutrix out of fear did not reveal anything.The accused, however, informed the investigating officer that he and the prosecutrix loved each other and she had gone with him out of her own free consent.A notice under Section 160 Cr.The prosecutrix was brought back to the police station where she gave her statement that in September, 2013 when she was alone in her house, the accused had taken advantage of the situation and had done galat kaam and also threatened that he would kill her as well as himself.LP 627/2015 Page 1 of 17xxxxx On the said day when the school got over, the accused who was present at the school gate, met her and told her that he would commit suicide.She was taken in by his statement and she accompanied him to Mainpuri.He made me to smell his handkerchief and after which I became partly unconscious.After leaving me at the house of his mausi in Mainpuri he went to his village in Mainpuri.Any thing good or bad that used to happen with me, first of all I used to tell to my mother.xxxxx I was admitted in Safdarjung hospital one year back previously from the date of incident.There was some hot dispute between me and my immediate younger sister on some issue.I was got admitted by my first elder brother Malkhan.I was taken to Safdarjung hospital by my brother Malkhan Singh and his friend on bike.It is wrong to suggest that I was admitted in the hospital by accused Kuldeep.Again said accused Kuldeep was also accompanying my brother when I was taken to the hospital."PW2 Ms. Neelam, mother of the prosecutrix in her deposition before Court stated "IO informed me on 05.10.13 and requested me to join the investigation for search of my daughter Rani and asked me to accompany him to Mainpuri UP but as I was not feeling well so I refused to accompany him." Further in her cross examination she Crl.In his cross examination he stated "Rani had made telephonic call to accused from my mobile phone 2-3 times..." PW5 Sh.Malkhan Singh in his examination in chief deposed that "he started living as a tenant in our premises for the last about three months from the date of missing of my sister Rani.On 07.12.2013 (sic) I was returning from my work in the evening time I noticed accused Kuldeep was holding my sister with her hand and were walking.On seeing me accused left the hand of my sister and he ran away.I followed him and caught hold of him and gave him beatings and there was a fight between me and accused.After quarrel accused went to his village".LP 627/2015 Page 7 of 17"I got the call from Rani that she was asking me to come to Delhi and even her brothers told me to come to Delhi immediately.But I refused them and I told them I would come in the month of October.After the week my mother picked up the call of Rani and she told my mother that she is in Mainpuri with her relatives and asked about my whereabouts.On the next date, I found Rani was in my house and when we asked the reasons, she told us that she does not want to go to Delhi and wants to marry me.My mother immediately called her parents and asked them that their daughter is in Mainpuri and told them to take her back.But she was Adamant and told us that she will commit suicide if she goes back to Delhi.The accused did galat kaam with her on 2/3.10.2013 and also kept her at different places which she could not identify."LP 627/2015 Page 2 of 17Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The prosecutrix was taken to CWC, Lajpat Nagar, where her custody was handed over to her mother.The statements of all the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed in the court.4. Charges under Section 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt against the respondent, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all.Statement of the respondent was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he reiterated his innocence and denied all prosecution charges.The respondent in his defence examined 4 witnesses.The learned Trial Judge, after scrutiny of the evidence observed that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the allegations of kidnapping, rape or extending threat against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the respondent was acquitted.Counsel for the State further submitted that the Trial Court has caused grave miscarriage of justice by not appreciating the settled position of law that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of offence and therefore her consent was immaterial.LP 627/2015 Page 3 of 17Counsel for the State vehemently urged that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix that on 30.09.2013, the prosecutrix came out from her school at about 10:00am where respondent met her and enticed her to accompany him as the elder sister of the prosecutrix was not well and she was admitted in the hospital.It is further urged that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix that the respondent brought the prosecutrix to the house of his mausi at Mainpuri and committed rape upon her two-three times without her consent.Per Contra, supporting the impugned judgment, it was submitted by Mr. Siddarth Yadav, counsel for the respondent that while recording the findings of acquittal in favour of the respondent very sound and cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Trial Judge.Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon as it suffers from material contradictions and thus the story put forward by the prosecution is false and not trustworthy.Counsel for the respondent further stated that prosecutrix herself came to village Mainpuri where the respondent was residing and he had informed the same to the parents and family of the prosecutrix and denied the allegations of rape.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also examined the judgment in detail rendered by the trial court.LP 627/2015 Page 4 of 17PW7 Ms. Sushma, teacher of Nigam Pratibha School, Mahipalpur deposed as under:"I have brought the original record/pasting file regarding age proof of prosecutrix daughter of Sh.As per the admission record the date of birth of prosecutrix is 10.10.1999."PW8 Ms. Ranju Sehrawat, teacher of Amar Shahid Major Sehrawat, SKV, Mahipalpur deposed that the certificate Ex.PW8/D was issued to the prosecutrix from the school regarding her date of birth.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had enticed the prosecutrix on the pretext of taking her to the hospital where the elder sister of the prosecutrix was claimed to be admitted and instead the respondent took her to the house of his mausi in Mainpuri and therein committed rape on her two- three times.At the outset, we deem it appropriate to rummage through the testimonies of the material witnesses.PW10, the prosecutrix in her examination in chief deposed as under:On one day in the month of September, 2013 exact date I am not recollecting today I was alone at home.Accused upon seeing me alone entered into my room and he tried to do jabrdasti with me. "isne mere saath jabardasti karne ki koshish ki aur mere Crl.LP 627/2015 Page 5 of 17 kapde utare lakin mane mana kar diya aur is ke sath rahne se inkar kar diya.Isne mere sath chedkhani ki.I refused him and he threatened me that if I disclosed about this to any one he threatened me stating "tujhe jaan se maar dunga"LP 627/2015 Page 5 of 17Again on one other day he caught hold of my hand in my room.The same was however seen by my brother.On this issue there was a scuffle between accused and my brother Malkhan Singh.Thereafter accused left for his village at Mainpuri.xxxxx On 30.09.2013 I went to school.On that day my sister did not go to school.At about 10 AM he came and met me outside the school.He enticed me and told me that my immediate elder sister is not well and she is admitted in hospital.On that day I was not feeling well so I believing his version accompanied him and he took me to the house of his mausi in Mainpuri.When he took me to Railway Station, Delhi I was not fully conscious so as to know where and how I will be taken.In Mainpuri in the house of his mausi he committed 2-3 times rape with me without my consent.After reaching Delhi on 05.10.2013 I was interrogated and on 06.10.2013 I was sent to PRAYAS.xxxxx It is correct that I had stated before the Magistrate when my statement was recorded that when I was alone in my house accused had committed rape upon me two times in my house in Delhi.After committing rape he threatened me that if I disclosed this fact to my parents then he will kill me.The prosecutrix in her cross examination deposed as under :"I know accused as initially he was our tenant.He remained as tenant in our premises only for one month.I do not know where he was living after vacating our premises after one month.It is wrong to suggest that I know accused for the last one and a half year from the date of incident.Accused did state that he loves me.But I did not agree to his proposal.I always refused his advances towards me.LP 627/2015 Page 7 of 17 stated "When IO asked me to accompany them in the investigation and on my inability due to unwell, to send any family member but none of my family member accompanied them..." PW4 Suraj in his deposition before Court stated "On some of the time Rani used to talk to accused from my mobile phone.Some of the time accused also used to call on mobile phone with a request to get engaged Rani on my mobile so that he can talk to her but I refused.Later on I came to know that accused had an affair with Rani".Section 361 of Indian Penal Code defines "kidnapping" from lawful guardianship as under :"Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship."LP 627/2015 Page 8 of 17In this case, the conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted by the Supreme Court.I went to delhi on 03.10.2013 and told about everything to the parents of the girl.They did not give any attention.I even told them that she will commit suicide but they abused me and said she is yours and you should take care of her"LP 627/2015 Page 11 of 17DW2 Smt. Sharda Devi, mother of respondent in her examination in chief deposed as under:"When I saw Rani in Mainpuri, I called her parents and inform them about her presence in Mainpuri.After two / three days, I got a call from police and they asked me about the whereabouts of my son Kuldeep and Rani.I informed them that Ranii is with her relatives who are residing in Mainpuri and my son Kuldeep is in Delhi.Thereafter, on 06.10.2013, I came to know that my son Kuldeep is arrested by the Delhi Police.On the very next date, I came to Delhi, I was in shock and learnt that Rani was alleging that Kuldeep had raped upon her.""Accused Kuldeep is the son of my sister.I know prosecutrix Rani since two/three years as she and her family used to come to Mainpuri for family functions.LP 627/2015 Page 13 of 17The admission of the prosecutrix and the testimony of the respondent go on to show that the respondent was in Delhi at the relevant time when the prosecutrix was recovered from Mainpuri Village.In the absence of any definite evidence that the prosecutrix resided with the respondent in Mainpuri village it is clear that there was no occasion or opportunity for the respondent to commit rape upon the prosecutrix.It is clear from the testimonies and the MLC report Ex.	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,021,288	Consequently, I.A.,2323/2020 is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution of jail sentence of the appellant No.2; Imran Hussain shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/12/2020, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard, with further following conditions:(i) the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in the office of the SDM, Alote for providing clothing and other basic amenities to the homeless persons living in the Old Age Homes and Children (boys & girls) living in orphanages or shelter homes or child care institutions in and around Alote and also to provide food to stray animals like dogs and cows etc. The office of SDM is directed to maintain a separate account (for production of the record as and when directed for).The appellant shall submit an attested photocopy of the receipt before 3 CRA-1076-2018 the Principal Registrar of this Bench, for placing the same on record of this case.(ii) the appellant shall furnish a written undertaking with his complete residential details that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);The deceased did not die on the spot but, died on the next day in the hospital.The final disposal of the appeal shall take time.He is sole bread earner of the family and the family is on the verge of starvation due to his jail incarceration.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions volunteers to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000./- (Rupees ten thousand only) in the office of the SDM, Alote for providing clothing and other basic amenities to the homeless persons living in the Old Age Homes and Children (boys & girls) living in orphanages or shelter homes or child care institutions in and around Alote and to provide food for stray animals.It is made clear that this e-copy order be treated as Certified copy in terms of the advisories issued by the High Court from time to time.I.A., closed.GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, CHATURVEDI 2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf20e67d11d7f91045d811 39f6792fbd4ae91f, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2020.06.22 18:05:28 +05'30'	['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,024,369	(3/10/2013) The following judgment of the court was delivered by:B.D. Rathi, J.This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.2.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge designated as Special Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.173/2000, whereby appellant nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine stipulation, whereas the appellant nos. 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine stipulation and R.I. for four years with 2 Cr.A.444/2002 fine stipulation respectively, while all the appellants have also been convicted under Section 364 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine stipulation, with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently.The prosecution story, in short, is that on 12.11.1999 when Gudda @ Nafis Khan was returning after answering the call of nature, appellant Hakeem, co-accused Nanhu, appellant Ismail, co- accused Rajendra, appellants Gulzar and Saleem, armed with country made pistols and Lathis came running towards Nafis and started forcibly taking him towards Farhada.Seeing this, as Ismail (PW5) shouted and ran towards them, villagers Lateef Khan (PW2), Fazal Khan, Jumman Khan (PW3), Wazir Khan, Fazal Ali and brother Hakeem also came forward to his rescue.Near the house of Bahav Khan, Hakeem Khan, Nanhu Khan and Ismaail Khan fired at Nafis leading to injuries on his face, mouth and nose and he fell down.Seeing the said witnesses, the appellants kept firing and pelting stones at them, due to which, being frightened, they returned.Hafiz, brother of Nafis, after a while, informed that Nafis had died.The report of the incident (Ex.P/11) was lodged by Ismail khan (PW5) on the same day at about 8 am upon which Crime No.41/99 (Ex.P/12) was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was based upon mis-appreciation of evidence on record.According to him, there is material inconsistency between the evidence of witnesses.He further submitted that author of the First Information Report (for short "the FIR"), being brother of the deceased, was an interested witness.He also contended that weapons used in commission of offence were neither seized nor any sanction to prosecute under Arms Act was obtained by the prosecution and accordingly, prayed that the appellants deserved to be acquitted.Cr.A.444/2002Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.To bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses.Out of them, being eye-witnesses to the incident, the most material witnesses were Latif Khan (PW2), Jumman Khan (PW3) and Ismail Khan (PW5), author of the FIR.It was not in dispute that death of Nafis S/o Farid Khan was homicidal in nature.Autopsy was conducted by Dr.R.S.Maravi (PW7) and cause of death was ascertained as shock and cardio-respiratory failure due to excessive haemorrhage caused by gunshot injury.Therefore, there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence on this point.Ismail Khan (PW5) categorically deposed that when Nafis was returning after answering the call of nature, at that time, Hakim, appellant Ismail and Nannu, armed with country made pistols and Gulazar, Salim and Rajendra having Lathis and Dandas came running, caught hold of Nafis and started taking him towards Village Farhada.As he shouted, Villagers Nazir, Fazal Ali, Jumman, Latif Kan, Hafiz reached there and they all ran after them for rescuing Nafis.Near the House of Tailor, Hakim, Ismail and Nannu, together, fired at Nafis, who sustaining injuries, fell on the spot and died.Then report (Ex.P/11) was lodged by him.His evidence was fully corroborated by that of other independent eye-witnesses Latif Khan (PW2) and Jumman Khan (PW3).Nothing could be elicited in their cross- examination so as to suggest that they were interested in securing conviction of the appellants on absolutely false grounds.Cr.A.444/2002Admittedly, during trial co-accused Nannu had died.On perusal of the record, it is quite vivid, that country made pistols that were used for commission of offence were neither seized nor any sanction to prosecute under Arms Act was obtained from the District Magistrate.Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the evidence on record, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment so far as it relates to convictions and sentences on other counts.In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed in part.Fine amount, if deposited by appellant nos. 3 and 4 for their conviction under the Arms Act, be refunded or adjusted towards their other fine sentences.Appellant nos. 3 and 4 are in jail and appellant nos. 1 and 2 are on bail.Therefore bail bonds of appellant nos. 1 and 2 stand cancelled.They are directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 18/11/13 for being committed to custody for undergoing the remaining part of custodial sentences, failing which the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure their arrest and ensure execution of sentences.Copy of this judgment along with record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,028,296	This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.91 of 2019 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station, investigated by Economic Offences Wing.The FIR was lodged on 2 nd November 2019 with Pantnagar Police Station for offences u/s 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.Subsequently Section 409 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act were added.The complainant Nikunj Patel has alleged that he had placed order for ornaments for his marriage with Rasiklal Sankalchand Jewellers.He handed over old ornamens of his mother worth Rs.6,22,860/-.Order was also placed for ornaments of his wife of R.1,50,000/-.On inquiry the accused bought time for delivery.On 30th September 2019 the complainant made coll to the jeweller.There was no response.Hence, he visited the shop.It was found closed.On inquiry with people present near the shop, he learnt that::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 ::: 2 of 6 904.ABA.284.2020.doc the owner of shop had cheated several investors, customers and closed their shop.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::During interrogation the accused had disclosed that loan of Rs.1.5 crore was obtained by them.On 30th October 2019 the applicant demanded his money and stated that if the accused cannot part with cash, the gold be handed over to him.Hence ornaments worth Rs.1.75 crore was given to applicant.On 17th December 2019 letter was sent by applicant to EOW stating that in May-2017 Jayeshbhai requested father of applicant that he is in need of 5 kgs gold for further expansion and stock for shop.He promised to give good returns.His father gave gold of his mother.Jayesh gave covering letter and cheque against 5 kgs gold as security.The main accused in CR No.91 of 2019 Jayesh Shah and Nilesh Shah were arrested.On 30 th November 2019 applicant requested for return of gold.The gold ornaments and diamond items were given in lieu of 5 kgs gold and extra 10%.He melted the gold and converted it into pure gold and sold diamonds.Summons dated 30th December 2019 u/s 91/160 of Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to applicant.Then summons dated 20th January 2020 u/s 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure was also issued.Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant was not impleaded as accused.He was called for inquiry.He had co-::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::He also relied upon observations made by the Court while granting bail to the said accused.It is submitted that the Sessions Court in the said order has observed that on account of rumours the investors got panic.The principal accused were arrested.It is submitted that in any case the applicant is not concerned with the investors and he is not privy to the transactions of the principal accused and the investors.Hence, the applicant need not::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 ::: 4 of 6 904.ABA.284.2020.doc be subjected to custodial interrogation.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::Learned APP submitted that there is strong evidence against applicant.There are no genuine documents to substantiate the claim of applicant.The gold belongs to the investors.The applicant and the co-accused have concocted the story of having handed over ornaments in the past by applicant and parted the gold to the applicant.He has not provided satisfactory explanation about his claim.There are no requisite entries with regards to the gold being deposited by the applicant with the principal accused.The explanation tendered by the applicant vide letter dated 17 th December 2019 is not supported by any entries.The applicant has suppressed vital facts.The custody of applicant is necessary.He is involved in crime.The Sessions Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that prima facie case is made out against applicant.I have perused the FIR, the documents annexed to the application and the order passed by Sessions Court.They were subjected to custody and granted bail.During the course of investigation and interrogation of the arrested accused, involvement of applicant was disclosed as the person to whom the gold was handed over.On 30th October 2019 the applicant had visited the shop and demanded money or gold.The applicant took gold and::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 ::: 5 of 6 904.ABA.284.2020.doc diamond jewellery worth Rs.1.75 crores.The prosecution case is that the accused handed over gold/diamond ornaments worth Rs.1.75 crores to the applicant on 30 th October 2019, when many customers had gathered in shop for demanding return of their ornaments.The accused in collusion with applicant siphoned off gold/diamond ornaments weighing 2.5 kgs belonging to investors.Learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail has considered all the aspects and had observed that prima facie case is made out against applicant.The case put forth by the applicant is unbelievable.The applicant's father had allegedly handed over gold jewellery of his parents to the accused in May- 2017, he was promised that accused would return the gold within one and half year along with extra 10%.Although the applicant relies upon letter dated 4th November 2019 issued by National India Bullion Refinery, it cannot be inferred that it is the same gold which is subject matter of the case.In letter dated 17 th December 2019 the applicant has referred to the transactions with the main accused.However, there are no entries supporting the said claim.Prima facie it appears that to avoid the return of jewellery to the investors, the gold was handed over to the applicant.It cannot be coincidence that after May-2017 the applicant visited the shop of co-accused on 30 th October 2019 to demand jewellery in the presence of investors, creditors etc and the good weighing 2500 grams was handed over to him.There are more than 500 investors and the total deceived amount is about Rs.10,90,47,900/-.The claim of the applicant is that he has melted the entire jewellelry.The claim appears to be devoid of merits.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::6 of 6 904.ABA.284.2020.docConsidering the circumstances, no case for grant of relief u/s 438 of Cr.Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.284 of 2020 is rejected.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 08:22:42 :::	['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,033,857	Counter affidavits filed on behalf of State as well as opposite party no.2 and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant are taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as 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 bail rejection order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in Bail Application No.203 of 2019 (Vishal Singh Vs.State) in Case Crime no.297 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. has been lodged with malicious intention to harass the appellant.Further submission is that the version of the F.I.R. is exaggerated and deliberately has been given a complexion of caste.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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, the period of detention already undergone and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant-Vishal Singh, 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 HIS 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.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 17.12.2019 M. Kumar	['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.
1,290,470	No. 41 of 1980, State v. Sheo Chandra Singh, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo, imprisonment for life.According to prosecution, the occurrence did take place on 15-12-1979 at 12-00 a.m. noon.The FIR was lodged on the same, day at, 3-30 p.m. at police station Bindhnu, District Kanpur, which is at the distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence.FIR was lodged by Sarju Singh containing the fact that his son Udai Bhan Singh had gone to field to irrigate land from canal in Bhainsahi Har of village Kalyani Purwa on.At about 12.00 noon when he was preparing Nali, appellant Sheo Chandra Singh, resident of his village went there and raised objection.He insisted that he would irrigate the land.Exchange of hot talk did take place when Chandra Bhan Singh and Ravi Bhan Singh, other two sons of informant Sarju Singh, reached there.x 31/2 cm.x Vertebrae deep over front of lower part of neck, just above the suprasternal notch, more on right side.Blackening, charring and tatooing was present around the wound.Rigor Mortis was present on both upper and lower extremities, but there was no sign of decomposition.Muscles and vessels were lacerated.Four wadding pieces were found embedded underneath the right clavicle at its medial end and 30 small pelletswere embedded in the muscles, vessels and vertebra.Larynx was fractured.Four small pellets were found embedded in the lung tissues.Semi-congested material was found in the stomach, small intestine was half full and large intestine was containing faecal matter.JUDGMENT K.N. Ojha, J.This appeal has been preferred against orders of conviction and sentence dated 24-3-1981, passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in ST.Kallu Singh and Ram Gopal Singh, who were going on bicycle on the patri of the canal, also reached there but Sheo Chandra Singh who was already having country made pistol, fired on his son Udai Bhan Singh, who died on the spot.Sheo Chandra Singh ran away along with country made pistol.3. Post-mortem examination on dead body of Udai Bhan Singh, aged about 25 years was done in mortuary of Kanpur.Following ante-mortem injury was found on his body --Firearm wound of Entry 4 cm.Three small pellets were found in cavity right side.Oesophagus was lacerated and congested underneath the injury.2 oz.P.C. prepared site-plan, recovered blood stained and plain earth from the spot and after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused.Prosecution examined P.W. 1 Sarju Singh, eye-witness, P.W. 2 Chandrika Prasad, constable who carried the dead body for the post-mortem examination, P.W. 3 Constable Ram Ashery, who prepared chick report, P.W. 4 Dr. S. N. Pandey, who performed autopsy on the dead body of Udai Bhan Singh in mortuary on 16-12-1979 at 1-30 p.m., P.W. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh is another eye-witness of the occurrence and brother of the deceased.P.W. 6 is Ram Sagar Yadav, who made investigation and submitted charge-sheet.Accused denied that he did commit murder of Udai Bhan Singh.It is alleged that Sarju Singh, father of the deceased was involved in the case under Section 302, IPC on account of Chhabi Nath, brother of the appellant.Therefore, Sarju Singh was carrying bad blood against Chhabi Nath.There was dispute of landed property also for which a Panchayat was called for and due to this reason the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.The appellant examined D.W. 1 Udai Singh, who is Telegraphist of Lower Ganga Canal Department.He has stated that if the level of the water in the canal is below 6 ft., the fields cannot be irrigated from the ca'-nal.On 15-12-1979 water level was 5.7 ft.only and, therefore, there was no chance of land being irrigated.The occurrence is said to have taken place on 15-12-1979 at 12.00 noon.The police station is at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence.The FIR was lodged by father of the deceased Udai Bhan Singh on the same day at 3.30 p.m. Witnesses P.W. 1 Sarju Singh, father of deceased and P.W. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh, brother of the deceased have supported the prosecution story that hot talk did take place in respect of water of Nali as a result of which Sheo Chandra Singh, who was already having country made pistol with him inside his dhoti, fired at Udai Bhan Singh, who met instantaneous death.Presence of these witnesses on the spot is quite natural because the land was being irrigated.Sarju Singh had gone to provide breakfast to the deceased and Chandra Bhan Singh, brother of the deceased had gone with Udai Bhan Singh to look after the Nali through which water was flowing.Thus, presence of P.W. 1 Sarju Singh and P.W. 5 Chandra Bhan Singh on the spot cannot be doubted.These witnesses have stated that exchange of hot talk did take place, there was exchange of insulting language also, Sheo Chandra Singh, who was having country made pistol, fired at Udhai Bhan Singh resulting into his death.The fire was caused from a near place as is evident from the firearm injury which contains blackening, charring and tatooing around the wound.The firearm injury was caused over the front and lower part of neck, which is vital part of the body.The injury was so serious that Udhai Bhan Singh died on the spot.Witnesses have stated that blood was found on the spot and the pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence which confirmed the place of occurrence that the firearm injury was caused at place "A" as shown in the site-plan.The accused could not be arrested on the spot by father, brothers and two witnesses going on the parti of the canal as he was having country made pistol in his hand but prompt FIR, consistent and natural evidence of two eye-witnesses, recovery of blood, pellets and wadding pieces from the place of occurrence, the nature of ante-mortem injury, which in the opinion of Doctor was the cause of death, confirm the fact that the appellant caused firearm injury to Udhai Bhan Singh, as a result of which he immediately died on the spot.A marpit started between them.At this the appellant brought his licenced gun from his house and shot at Barun Dungi, who was injured.Hence the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Fourth ruling cited is 1988 SCC (Cri) 905 : AIR 1988 SC 2136 : 1989 Cri LJ 122) "Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan" in which it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that when there was dispute between the parties as to who had the turn to use the water pump and when there is no clear evidence who had the turn, in the circumstances it can be assumed that the accused in exercise of his right to use the pump got enraged and tried to prevent the mischief by the deceased.Hence, conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304, Part I, IPC.Appellant Sheo Chandra Singh did not fire just after coming from his house.He first resisted on reaching the spot.Exchange of hot talk did take place for two minuted between the deceased and the appellant.While exchanging hot talk, they came at the ridge of the 'Nali'.Appellant was infuriated, then he fired.If he would have gone with the intention to commit murder, he would not have entered into exchange of hot talk and he would have immediately fired on Udai Bhan singh and run away.He would not have given occasion to the brothers and father of the deceased to reach the spot.P.W. 1 Sarju Singh says that there was no enmity between appellant Sheo Chandra Singh and the family members of the deceased.Hence, brothers and father of the deceased had no idea that appellant would fire on Udai Bhan Singh.It means, when the appel lant came from his house to the place of Nali, he had no intention to commit the murder.It was exchange of hot talks, which infuri ated the appellant and immediately inspired the appellant to open fire.The accused Was about 24 years of age at the time of the occurrence.He was young person.Therefore, a punishment of ten years rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.Appeal is partly allowed.The appellant Sheo Chandra Singh is convicted under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302, IPC and he is sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, Part I, IPC.	['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,049,938	(SARTHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) 2 Indore, Dated : 13-10-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Shri S.K. Meena, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. Drishti Rawal, public prosecutor for State.None for the complainant.This cri.appeal/application filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is in jail since 6.3.2020 in connection with Crime No.104/2020, registered at P.S., Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, for offence punishable under Sections 354, 392 of IPC and under Sections 3(i),d,k, 3(ii) (Va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities)In this matter bail has been sought on the ground of illness of father and daughter.The same has been made available today.In the medical report, it has been mentioned that the father of the appellant has been in coma and is bedridden since last 13 years, which is the result of an accident, which he suffered at that point of time.Regarding the daughter's medical report which is made available wherein she has been stated to be suffered from normal cold and cough.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the wife of the applicant has expired six months back and on these grounds, he seeks temporary bail stating that due to Covid 19 situation, the trials have not commenced.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was heard.She submits that there are as many as 10 criminal antecedents against the appellant.To this, learned counsel for the appellant submits that all these cases have resulted in acquittal.In the present case which has been registered under Section 354 and Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 14/10/2020 15:16:28 2 CRA-5139-2020 392 of IPC and under Sections 3(i),d,k, 3(ii) (Va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the facts reveal that the appellant had forced himself upon the complainant and stated that he wants to stay with her and when the prosecutrix protested, he snatched her mobile and fled from the spot.On the expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, he shall surrender himself before the concerned trial court.It is made clear that appellant shall not threaten or influence the complainant/prosecutrix or any of the witnesses and shall not be found indulging in any criminal offence of likewise nature.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for its compliance.With the aforesaid the Cri.Appeal/application stands partly allowed and disposed of.as per rules.	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,050,652	(a) The accused 1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively.Thesecond accused is their son.They were all residing at KaduguchandaiChathiram, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.The deceased in this case was one Muthupriya.PWs.2 and 3 are the mother and father respectively of thedeceased.PWs.2 and 3 were residing at Vadapathi Mangalam Village, Tiruvarur District and their native place is Enathi Village, Muthukulathoor Taluk.Thedeceased, at the time of occurrence, was hardly 14 years old.She wasstudying 9th standard and staying in a girls hostel.(b) Few days before 12.04.2012, the second accused, aged about 21 years, had kidnaped the deceased from the hostel.The warden of the hostelinformed PWs.2 and 3 about the same.PW2 immediately rushed to Muthukulathoor Police Station and made a complaint on 12.04.2012 and based on the same, a case was registered.PWs.2 and 3 took the deceased to Vadapathi Mangalam Village and kept her in theircustody at their house.(c) Within a weeks time, the second accused again kidnapped the deceased from the house of PWs.2 and 3 at Vadapathi Mangalam Village.On enquiry, PWs.2 and 3 came to know that the second accused was living with the deceased at Maravar Street, Muthukulathoor, in a rental house and in fact,they were living as husband and wife.PWs.2 and 3 came to Muthukulathoor and took the deceased to Vadapathi Mangalam and kept her in their custody.Thereafter, the 2nd accused came to Vadapathi Mangalam and met PWs.2 and 3 and wanted to take the deceased with him.PWs.2 and 3 told him that thedeceased not even attained puppetry and therefore, it is not proper on hispart to live with her.In the talks held, the second accused agreed to marrythe deceased after she attaining the puppetry and gave an undertaking inwriting in a stamp paper (Ex.P2) to that effect and then, with the consent ofPWs.2 and 3, he took the deceased again to Muthukulathoor and lived with herat Maravar Street, Muthukulathoor, in the rental house.(d) It is stated that after some time, the accused started demanding 10sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- cash as dowry from the deceased.Thedeceased informed PWs.2 and 3 over phone about the demand made by all the three accused.Thereafter, on 29.10.2012 at 8.00 p.m., according to the caseof the prosecution, the 1st accused with the assistance of the accused 2 and3 killed the deceased by strangulating her.The occurrence was not witnessedby any one.On 30.10.2012 at 6.30 a.m. PW1, the uncle of the deceased, on hearing about the occurrence, came down to the place of occurrence.Admittedly,the second accused had fallen in love with the deceased and he kidnapped her.After she was rescued, the second accused went all the way to the house ofthe deceased, persuaded PWs.1 and 2 and took her back with him.While so doing, he executed Ex.P2, a letter of undertaking in Rs.50/- stamp paper,where he has stated that he would marry the deceased after she attainedpuppetry.He further gave undertaking that until then he would maintain herat his house.(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.79 of 2013 on thefile of the Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.The trialCourt framed as many as 4 charges against the accused as under:Charge No. Accused Offence U/s.A1 to A3 U/s.498-A IPC 2A1 U/s.302 IPC 3A2 & A3 U/s.302 r/w 34 IPC4A1 to A3 U/s.201 IPC By judgment dated 26.03.2015, the trial Court convicted all the three accusedunder all the charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment forthree years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergosimple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPCand to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three monthsfor the offence under Section 201 IPC.The trial Court has also sentencedthe first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for theoffence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced the accused 2 and 3 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default toundergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302r/w 34 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A1to A3 have come up with this appeal.Immediately, he made a complaint to the Police.On 30.10.2012 at 9.00 a.m. on the said complaint, a case was registered inCrime No.287 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death).(e) PW15, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case forinvestigation and went to the place of occurrence at 10.00 a.m., prepared anobservation mahazar and a rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence.Herecovered the saree that was used for ligature.He forwarded a copy of theFIR to the Executive Magistrate for holding inquest on the body of thedeceased.Accordingly, PW12, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi,held inquest on the dead body of the deceased.He forwarded the same forpostmortem.(f) PW10, Dr.Velmurugan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 31.10.2012 at 12.00 p.m.. He found the following injuries:?External : Lying supine ? frothy, fluid blood oozing out from bothnostrils.An antemortem ligature mark of about 03 c.m. Width commencing from the left side of neck.(at the perpendicular line of the external ear-auricle) encirculating the neck into the right side and ending at the midlineof the posterior part of neck.No other external injuries.Brain & Membranes computed.Vertebral column ? no fracture.No fracture of teeth.Neck : Antemortem inward compression fracture of right greater coranaof Hyoid bone (5 m.m.) with antemortem inward compression fracture of thyroidcartilage (full length) seen.Thorax : Heart ? all 4 chambers filled with fluid blood.Lungs ? congested.Stomach : 100 ml of dark, odourless fluid present.Abdomen : All organs congested.Uterus : (N.C) no products ofconception found.All 4 limbs : No fracture.Vaginal Orifice : No evidence of semen ? by vision ? noted.?He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation.P10 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P11 is his final opinionregarding the cause of death.Based on the above opinion of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy and the report of the RDO, he altered the case into one underSections 498-A and 302 IPC and examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements.He arrested the accused 2 and 3 on 27.11.2016 at 4.00 p.m.On such arrest, the second accused gave a voluntary confession in which hedisclosed the place where he had hidden a plastic chair.In pursuance of thesame, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and producedthe plastic chair.PW16 recovered the same under a Mahazar and forwarded theaccused to the Court for judicial remand.At the request of PW16, PW14recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Oncompleting the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.(h) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of theprosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 2 material objects were marked.(i) Out of the said witnesses, PW1 to PW3, the uncle, the mother andthe father respectively of the deceased have spoken about kidnapping of thedeceased by the accused before 12.04.2012 and about the fact that thedeceased was rescued by the Police.They have also stated about Ex.P2 the undertaking given by the accused.At last, they have stated that after sometime, all the three accused demanded 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- asdowry.PW1 has further spoken about the complaint given by him.PW4 is aresident of Muthukulathoor.He has spoken about the preparation of theobservation mahazar and rough sketch.He has further stated about recordingof his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure.PW5has stated that on 30.10.2012 at 4.00 a.m. he found all the three accusedtalking among themselves in their house.(j) PW6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar andrough sketch.He has also spoken about the arrest of the accused and therecovery of the material objects in pursuance of the disclosure statementmade by the second accused.PW7, a constable, has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Doctor forpostmortem, as directed by the investigating officer.PW8, yet anotherconstable, has stated that he handed over the internal organ recovered fromthe dead body for chemical examination.PW9, the Headmaster of the school, where the deceased was studying, has spoken about the date of birth of thedeceased.According to her, Ex.P8 is the Transfer Certificate of thedeceased.(k) PW10 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW11, an Assistant Director of ForensicLab, has stated about the chemical examination conducted on the viscera organof the deceased.According to him, there was neither poison nor alcohol inthe same.PW12, the RDO, has spoken about the inquest conducted on the body of the deceased.PW13 has stated that he handed over the FIR to the learnedMagistrate, as directed by the investigating officer.PW14, the thenJudicial Magistrate of Kamuthi, has stated about the fact that he recordedthe statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW15 and PW16 have spoken about the investigation done and final report filed.PW17, the HeadClerk of the Magistrate Court, has stated that he forwarded the materialobjects for chemical examination as directed by the learned Magistrate.(l) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, theydid not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on their side.The defence of the accused was a total denial.Having considered all theabove, the trial Court convicted them, as detailed in the first paragraph ofthis judgment.3.We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants/A1 to A3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearingfor the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, as we have already pointed out, there is no eyewitnessto the occurrence.In order to prove this charge, we find that absolutely there is noevidence on record.As we have already stated, PWs.1 to 3 have stated onlyabout the earlier occurrence in which the deceased was kidnaped by theaccused.The trial Court has also convicted these accused out of surmise.The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, had found only a ligature mark around the neck of thedeceased.There were on other marks of violence found on the body of thedeceased.The hyoid bone was found fractured.It is not as though the ligature mark found around the neckof the deceased was a postmortem injury.Admittedly, it was an antemorteminjury.It was the cause for the death.Had it been true that the deceased was strangulated manually by thefirst accused, there would have been other marks of violence on the body ofthe deceased.But, no such mark of violence was found on the body of thedeceased.There is no indication in Ex.P1 ? complaint that the accuseddemanded dowry.In a vague manner, PWs.1 to 3 havestated that on one occasion, the deceased had spoken to them over phone and told that the accused were demanding Rs.10,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold.We find it difficult to believe PWs.1 to 3 going by the other circumstances,which we have already discussed.Thus, in our considered view, the allegationthat all the three accused demanded dowry from the deceased also is verydifficult to believe.Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to provethe charge under Section 498-A IPC also.Since the accused are entitled for acquittal from the charge underSections 302, 302 r/w 34 and 498-A IPC, as a corollary, they are entitled foracquittal from the charge under Section 201 IPC also.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the convictionand sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants in S.C.No.79of 2013 are set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges.The bailbond, if any, executed by them shall stand terminated.2.The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
12,905,077	(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 28.08.2013 made in C3.D.O.No.79/2013, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.As per the grounds of detention dated 28.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1Ambur Town Police Station Cr. No.21/2013294(b), 323 and 506(ii)All Women Police Station, Gudiyatham Cr. No.08/2013376, 366(A), 506(ii) I.P.C., 4 and 8 of Protection of Children Sexual Offences Act and 67 of Information Technology ActFurther his remand period was extended till 04.09.2013."7.From a reading of the above, it is clear that the remand order dated 30.06.2013 has been relied on by the detaining authority and if so, it is necessary that the detenu should be furnished with the copy of the remand order not only in English version but also in the language known to him so as to enable him to make effective representation for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum.In the English version of the remand order dated 30.06.2013 found at Page No.64 of the booklet, it is stated thus:"Accused A1-A5 in the margin produced.No injuries reported.No complaint against police.Remand request made for offences U/s. 376, 366(A), 506(ii) I.P.C. and 4, 8 of Protection of Children from sexual harassment Act & 67 of IT Act. There is prima facie case material available that the Accused 1-5 are having common object in counting (sic.committing) the offence.Hence A1-A5 remanded U/s. 376, 366(A), 506(ii) IPC & 4, 8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 67 of I.T. Act r/w S.149 IPC A1-A5 remanded to judicial custody till 12/7/2013 A2 to be kept in TN Borstal School."No complaint against Police" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu was prevented from making effective representation.Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in C3.D.O.No.79/2013 dated 28.08.2013, is set aside.The detenu - Saranraj, S/o.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.	['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
129,051,651	This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2017 in connection with Crime No.467/2017 registered at Police Station- Pardeshipura, District- Indore for offence punishable under Sections 324, 294, 354, 354D and 506 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 19.09.2017 at about 5:00 p.m. the prosecutrix while coming back home to stock the raddi, the applicant met her on the way and with an ill-intention caught hold of her hand and insisted to follow him.When she resisted, he abused her and also caused slit on her left hand with a blade.No sooner, did she shout, her husband Ramesh came running, thereafter, the applicant fled away.Accordingly, the case has been registered against him.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the order impugned and opposed the bail application.Having perused the case-diary and submission advanced, this Court is of the opinion that without commenting on merits, the applicant has to be enlarged on bail as challan has been filed and the trial will take long time to conclude.Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed.It is directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rohit Arya) Judge Kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Kafeel Ahmed DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Ansari 2.5.4.20=08345dcd49ce70b9482a0cdd096366 9f80e64e3c96adeca6531dd3cb6f8f91fd, cn=Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 2018.01.06 12:09:03 +05'30'	['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
63,534,497	[ M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]ndm ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 23:06:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 23:06:44 :::	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
63,550,407	Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri A. P. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 60/2016 registered at Police Station Dheemarkheda District Katni for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have kept the deceased subject to harassment for fulfill the demand of dowry and on account of this deceased Sapna committed suicide by hanging.There is sufficient material against the applicants.Hence, the application be rejected.It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased committed suicide in her parental house where she was residing since last three months of the incident and some quarrel has been taken place with the husband of the deceased.No role has been assigned to the applicants in the incident, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail.Having considered the arguments and after perusal of the case diary, without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.In the circumstances, the application is allowed.On applicants' furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing their presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicants viz. Prahlad and Smt. Kera Bai be released on bail.The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) V. JUDGE AD/	['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
63,553,049	The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Baby.She was a resident of Karaikadu village in Cuddalore taluk.P.W.1 is her husband.He was a driver by profession.The accused is also related to the deceased.He was also residing in the same village.There is a public water tap on the street somewhere near the house of the deceased.On 03.09.2013, around 07.45 a.m. the deceased had gone to the said public water tap and she was taking water.P.W.1 was also there.At that time, the accused came there and he shouted at the deceased not to take water from that tap.This resulted in a quarrel.In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused took out a spade and attacked P.W.1 with the spade on his head and caused a simple hurt.When the deceased intervened, he inflicted a single blow on the head with the spade.Then the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence along with the weapon.Then the neighbours who were there, arranged for an ambulance and took both P.W.1 and the deceased to the Government hospital at Cuddalore.The doctors there, referred them immediately to JIPMER hospital, Puducherry.Accordingly, they were admitted as inpatients at JIPMER hospital.When P.W.1 and the deceased were in the Government hospital at Cuddalore, on intimation from the hospital authorities, P.W.7 the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, Cuddalore O.T. Police Station, rushed to the hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the police station at 11.30 a.m. he registered a case in Crime No.487 of 2013 under Sections 294B and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. He forwarded the complaint (Ex.P.W.11, took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.Then, he rushed to JIPMER hospital.He found the deceased unconscious.He examined P.W.1 and recovered the bloodstained clothes from him.On 04.09.2013 at 07.00 a.m. he arrested the accused at Eachanthangal in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the spade with wooden handle.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.117 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Sessions Court, Cuddalore.He stood charged for offences under Section 294B, 307 and 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 21.08.2015, the trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 294B I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:P.W.11 recovered the same under a mahazar.At 10.15 p.m. on the same day, the deceased died in the hospital.Then, going over to the hospital, he held inquest on the body of the deceased between 09.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m. on 05.09.2013 and then forwarded the body for postmortem.P.W.8 Dr.Siddhartha Das conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.09.2013 at 12.10 p.m. He found the following injuries:Injuries: (a) stitched lacerated wound of size 3x1.5 cm containing 3 black coloured sutures present 12 cm above the left mastoid.Dark red coloured blood clots present along the margins of the wound.On opening the sutures, wound is found to be skull deep and the corresponding area of the skull contains clotted blood.(b) 'C' shaped surgical incision present in the right fronto-parieto-temporal area of scalp, starting from point 1 cm in front of tragus of right ear, goes towards the frontal bone of length 7.5 cm, then turns backwards of length 7 cm, then turns downwards of length 6 cm to end 2 cm above the mastoid process.(c) Stitched lacerated wound of size 4 cm containing 4 black coloured sutures present in the right-temporal part starting from the junction of the anterior and middle arm of the above mentioned 'C' shaped surgical incision.Internal Examination: Head: (a) Skull bone of size 10x9 cm surgical removed from the right fronto-parieto-temoral area.It contains 3 burr holes along the superior margin of this surgical wound.Dura mater of corresponding size found surgically cut.Blood stained mesh of corresponding size present over the brain.(b) Extra dural hemorrhage of size 14x13x0.5 cm present over both the partial and frontal lobe of brain.(c) Contusion of under surface of right temporal lobe of brain.(d) Intraparenchymal petechial hemorrhage present in the right temporal lobe of brain.Neck Structures: intact; Thorax intact; Abdomen and pelvis - Intact.Ex.P8 is the postmortem certificate.He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, which the accused denied.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined, 13 documents and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 from his possession on the disclosure statement made by him.P.W.6 Dr.Durgavathi has stated that on 03.09.2013 when she was on duty at Cuddalore Government Hospital, she examined the deceased.She found a lacerated injuries on the head measuring 3x1x1 cms.P4 is the accident register.On the same day, she examined P.W.1 and found a lacerated injury measuring 3x1x1 cms on his head.P5 is the accident register.P.W.8 has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.9 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and his final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, he is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully.P.W.1 is the injured eyewitness.He has spoken vividly about the entire occurrence.P.Ws.2 to 4, who are all the neighbours of the deceased, had also witnessed the entire occurrence.Though these four witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them so as to doubt their credibility.P.Ws.2 to 4 alone had taken the deceased and P.W.1 to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore.6. P.W.8 Dr.Siddhartha Das who conducted autopsy on the accused has opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the head injury found on the body of the deceased.We do not find any reason to doubt the said opinion.Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased.Similarly, the prosecution has proved that it was this accused who caused injury on the head of the P.W.1 with spade.Admittedly, there was no motive between the parties.The quarrel was sudden.The deceased was taking water from the public tap, which was opposed by the accused.This resulted in a quarrel.He was not already armed with any weapon.In the said quarrel, he took out the spade which was lying there and gave a single blow on P.W.1 as well as on the deceased.At the same time, since the act of the accused would squarely fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C., it is in evidence that in the quarrel, in the heat of passion, the accused attacked the deceased with the spade.Therefore, for having caused the death of the deceased, the accused is liable to be punished for offence under Section 304(ii)The accused can be attribute to the knowledge that the injury caused on P.W.1 was imminently dangerous to cause death.But due to medical intervention, P.W.1 was saved.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is an aged around 65 years.The occurrence was not premeditate.He was not armed with any weapon.It was out of sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the occurrence had taken place.He has got a big family to take care of.Having regard to these mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and to sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are set aside and instead, he is convicted for offences under Sections 304(ii) IPC and 308 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks, for offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. is confirmed.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 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.
63,557,532	Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of crime no. 33 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, PS.Kubersthan, District Kushi Nagar.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that victim, who is daughter of the opposite party no. 2, has married accused-applicant and has child of six months born out of the wedlock.	['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
63,558,301	The occurrence in this case was during the year 2014 after this case, the petitioner had been regularly indulged in criminal activities, to his credit the petitioner has four more cases.He further submitted that this case is pending trial.O.P.No.12090 of 2020(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner is confined on his release;(b) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lockdown and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m except on the days when he is to appear before the Trial Court;1.The Principal District and Session Judge, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal.O.P.No.12090 of 2020 12.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 302 and 506 (ii) of IPC in S.C. No.205 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, Chennai, seeks bail.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was granted bail and he was complying with the conditions regularly.On 07.09.2019 the petitioner was not able to appear before the concerned magistrate and hence, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner.He would further submit that absence was due to his illness, neither willful nor wanton and he undertakes to appear before the Trial Court regularly on all future hearing dates without fail.Hence, he sought grant of bail to the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.12090 of 2020Due to non appearance of the petitioner, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner on 22.10.2019 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2020 after a period of five months.If the petitioner is granted bail, it would be difficult for the respondent to secure the petitioner.Therefore, he vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.12090 of 2020 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Chennai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.12090 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J kmi Crl.	['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,430,384	The incident happened in a corner of one of the rooms of the house, which corner was being used as a kitchen by the deceased and her husband, Subhash.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that Subhash, i.e., the husband of the deceased has four sisters.The appellant Madhu Bala is one of them.JUDGMENT Charanjit Talwar, J.The dying declarations made by Vinod Bala are the basis of conviction of her sister-in-law Madhu Bala, the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.By this appeal, the appellant is challenging her conviction for the offence of murder and also the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on her.The prosecution case was that on 26th April, 1983 at about 3.45 p.m., Vinod Bala was burnt by her sister-in-law Madhu Bala in their house No. C-813, Mangol Puri, Delhi.According to the prosecution, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on Vinod Bala and thereafter set her on fire.The First Information Report about the incident was recorded on the basis of a statement made by Vinod Bala to Shri S. C. Gupta, who was at the relevant time, the Sub.Divisional Magistrate.This statement was made at about 4.15 p.m. on 28th April, 1983 in the Burns Ward of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, Delhi.Vinod Bala had been removed to the hospital by her husband Subhash on the day of the incident itself.The M.L.C. recorded at the time of her admission by P.W. 14, Dr. Komal Singh is to the following effect :"Alleged H/O (history of) burn due to burning of clothes during cooking meal."It seems that it was on the initiative of A.S.I. Harish Chander of Police Station Mangol Puri that Shri S. C. Gupta had been requested to visit the hospital to record the statement of the injured.Apparently till then there was no suspicion regarding the involvement of the appellant or any other member of her family in this incident and, therefore, no arrest had been made.The record of the statement of Vinod Bala made by Shri S. C. Gupta is as follows :"stated that in my husband's family all the things are done according to the directions of my sister-in-law (husband's sister).She has thrown oil on me and lit fire.My husband was not at home at that time"The above statement was neither signed nor thumb marked by Vinod Bala.It appears that it was not even considered prudent to have the statement attested by any one of the Doctors attending on her or by nurses.The effect of the omission of not adhering to any safeguard, would be discussed by us a little later.But at this stage it is to be highlighted that in the said statement, Vinod Bala had not named the appellant as the sister-in-law, who set her on fire.It appears that this Police Officer even prior to the recording of the F.I.R. had visited the spot on 26th April, 1983 itself, after receipt of the daily diary report about Vinod Bala having been admitted to the hospital.He had got the spot photographed.He had also interrogated some witnesses; one of them being a neighbour Smt. Basanti and another, sister-in-law of the deceased, Kumari Meenu.It is useful to notice that those two witnesses were not cited by the prosecution as prosecution witnesses as according to A.S.I. Harish Chander, he "was not satisfied with those statements" and hence did not place them on the record.The previous statements of those two witnesses have been brought on record but being inadmissible in evidence, we are not referring to those.The fact which stands established is that on 26th April, 1983, a few hours after the incident, the Police Officer to whom the investigation of the case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code was handed over later on, had himself interrogated some witnesses but since their statements were not to his liking, those were not relied upon.The fact thus which can be taken note of is that the theory which was revolving in the mind of the Police official could not be supported by the statement made by a neighbour and, therefore, that person has been purposely withheld.It is in that statement that Vinod Bala is said to have named the appellant herein as the sister-in-law, who poured oil on her and then set her on fire.The S.I. (P.W. 17) did not give any explanation for not obtaining the signatures or thumb mark.There is also no attesting witness to that statement.The allegations in the said statement about the pouring of oil and setting her on fire, are similar to the one made by Vinod Bala in her statement to the S.D.M. The statement made on 29th April, 1983 is Ex. P.W. 17/A.From the record of the case, we are unable to find out as to why no effort or attempt had been made by the S.D.M. or the Investigating Officer to obtain the signatures or thumb mark.The learned counsel for the prosecution is also unable to help us.However, we find from the impugned judgment that the trial Judge was of the view that as both the hands of Vinod Bala had been burnt, it was not possible to obtain her signatures or thumb mark on those statements.This finding is based on the M.L.C. (Ex. P.W. 14/A), which finding according to the learned Judge is re-inforced by indication of the burnt portions of the body shown at the back of the M.L.C. (Ex. P.W. 14/A).The trial court found that :It is that statement, as noticed, which is the basis of the First Information Report.We have carefully scrutinised the two figures on the back of the M.L.C. The first figure shows a person's front and the second one, his back.The burnt portions have been indicated in blue lints.The palm of the right hand was not burnt.There is no marking whatsoever showing that the thumb of the right hand was affected.It is true that in his testimony, P.W. 14 Dr. Komal Singh had stated that there were superficial burns on the right hand of the patient (Vinod Bala) but he did not depose that the left hand had also received burn injuries.What he stated was :"On examination, the patient was conscious, pulse rate was 80 per minute regular.Burns areas - scalp hair singed.Chin superficial burn.On the left arm and fore-arm superficial burn.Right hand superficial burn.Abdomen superficial burn.Both thigh superficial burn.In his testimony, Shri Gupta says that he had obtained a certificate from the Doctor that Vinod Bala was fit for making a statement but he admits that he did not obtain the certificate in writing.He also admits that the statement was not recorded in question and answer form.The other declaration (Ex. P.W. 17/A) stated to have been made to the Instigating Officer, also suffers the infirmities which have been noticed in the declaration made to the Magistrate.Apart from the lack of certificate from the medical officer concerned or of attestation by other witnesses, the prosecution has not been able to show as to why further declaration which was required to be recorded, was not got recorded in front of the Judicial Magistrate.It was open to the Investigating Officer on 29th April, 1983 to move the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or any other senior most Judicial Officer for seeking deputation of a Magistrate to record further declaration of Vinod Bala.In fact Rule 2 of Chapter 13-A of the Rules referred to above makes it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to apply to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to depute some Magistrate for recording of the dying declaration.(2) On receiving such application, the Judicial Magistrate shall at once either himself proceed, or depute some other stipendiary Judicial Magistrate to record the dying declaration."P.W. 17 S.I. Sukhbir Singh, the Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not obtain any endorsement or permission on that day from the Doctor to record the statement.According to the prosecution, oil was poured over the head of the deceased by her sister-in-law Madhu Bala and thereafter she was set on fire.The burnt pieces of clothing which were sent to the C.F.S. Laboratory for analysis, did not contain kerosene oil.The report (Ex. P.W. 121/B) on this aspect is as follows :"Result on Analysis/Examination The physic Chemical method of analysis shows that the contents of exhibit No. 1 does not contain kerosene oil."Exhibit No. 1 was a sealed parcel containing the clothes of the deceased.This very argument urged before us regarding the absence of kerosene oil on the body and the clothes of the deceased was raised before the trial court also but it was negatived.(1) the nature of exhibits submitted for examination, (2) the degree of the burns suffered by the exhibits submitted for examination, (3) the amount of kerosene poured on the exhibits submitted for examination, and (4) the time gap between receipt of burns by the exhibits and the Chemical analysis thereof by the expert, If the entire cloth on which the kerosene oil was put is burnt completely, obviously no residue will be left.In the present case, the entire maxi the deceased had been burnt down.These pieces were converted into a sealed parcel and were deposited in the malkhana of the police station.Therefore, there is every possibility that the smell of kerosene oil from these seven pieces of burnt maxi must have been evaporated during the course of those four months ......."This aspect has not been assessed by the learned trial court.Thus the facts and circumstances proved in the present case negative the declarations, Ex. P.W. 15/A and Ex. P.W. 17/A. In our view those two declarations ought not to be acted upon.There is one other dying declaration which the deceased is stated to have made to her mother P.W. 9 Simla Devi.In her examination-in-chief, she stated :"I made inquiry from my daughter Vinod Bala as to how she received burn injuries.She informed me that she was told by Subhash that they would take her to the hospital only if she informs that she sustained injuries herself.A Magistrate came and at that time I was sent out.Before the arrival of the Magistrate, my daughter told me that burn injuries were caused to her by her Nanad (husband's sister)."It is the case of the prosecution that at that very time, Vinod Bala's father Shri Dayal Prasad, P.W. 8 was present.It is the assertion of Shri Dayal Prasad that he went to the Police Station on 27th April, 1983 as by then statement of his daughter had not been recorded.Both these witnesses, i.e. P.W. 9 Smt. Simla Devi and P.W. 8 Shri Dayal Prasad agreed that they had not made any statement to the Police till 29th April, 1983, i.e., the day on which the Investigating Officer recorded the supplementary declaration (Ex. P.W. 17/A).By then the prosecution theory as far as the Investigating Officer was concerned, had been worked out and that was that Vinod Bala had been set on fire by the appellant herein.This was irrespective of the fact that one of the neighbours Smt. Basanti and the other sister-in-law of the deceased Km.Meenu had not supported this theory.After giving our careful consideration, we do not believe the assertion of P.W. 9 Smt. Simla Devi that any dying declaration was made to her by the deceased on 26th April, 1983 or later on.The result of our above discussion is that the prosecution case against the appellant has not been made out.The appeal is allowed.The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on her, are hereby set aside.The appellant is on bail.Appeal allowed.	['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.
143,040	The Committees recommended in its report to proceed against the corrupt middlemen, private secretaries, personal assistants of MPs officially working in Parliament, who were instrumental in arranging the meeting of undercover reporters with Members of Parliament and acted as conduits in murky deals.One Harish Badola has been mentioned in the complaint as middleman, who was used as a conduit by journalists and who received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on behalf of Dr. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha, which included Rs. 5000/- as his own share.Mr. Harish Badola, after receiving the amount, arranged a meeting of the undercover journalists with Dr. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha.The action of the petitioners of exposing corruption was necessary so that the people may know the acts of their elected representatives.The matter was referred to a Committee on Ethics of Parliament.	['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.
143,040,141	The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19/1/2018 passed in MCRC No. 151/2018 with liberty to revive after the charge- sheet is filed.The applicant has been arrested on 19.12.2017 in connection with Crime No. 321/2017 registered by Police Station Purani Chhavni, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 326 and 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, some dispute had arisen between the complainant party and the accused persons over the question of encroachment of land and when it was objected by the complainant party, co- accused Naushad gave a Baka blow on the hand of the complainant and when his mother tried to intervene in the matter, it is alleged that the applicant picked up stone and assaulted on the right hand of the mother of the complainant, as a result, she suffered corresponding fracture.It is submitted that according to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on a trivial issue and the applicant is alleged to have picked up the stone lying on 2 the ground and assaulted on the hand of the complainant's mother.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge AKS Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2018.03.26 18:30:36 +05'30'	['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
143,040,799	Narender Mann, Spl.Mr.Shubhendu Kumar, Adv.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 1 of 11CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. ...Respondent Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.Utkarsha Kohli, Adv. for CBI.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. & Ms.Utkarsha Kohli, Adv. for CBI.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 2 of 11Aggrieved by the order dated 9th April, 2013 passed by the learned CMM on the basis of the order dated 12th March, 2013 of learned Special Judge, CBI, the present petitions under Section 482 & 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for quashing of the above mentioned both the orders.As all the petitions mentioned above are against the same order, so are being taken together.The factual matrix is that the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "accused persons") in the present cases were proceeded in pursuance of the FIR bearing RC No.1(S)/2010/CBI/SC-III/ND under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and thereafter, the investigation proceeded.On the completion of the investigation, the investigating agency i.e. CBI filed a charge sheet under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, before the learned Judge, designated Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Crl.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 3 of 11 despite refusal of the competent authority to accord sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, essential for taking cognizance under the PC Act.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 3 of 11Since no sanction for prosecution of the petitioners namely Devender Kumar Bajaj and Sheela Ahuja along with one Ashok Kumar was accorded, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 12 th March, 2013 sent the matter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while observing that prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the accused persons.The learned CMM vide order dated 9th April, 2013 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and summoned the accused persons.The matter came up for hearing before the learned Special Judge, CBI and while passing the detailed order dated 12 th March, 2013, the Court was of the view as under:-I am, therefore, of the opinion that prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC is made out against all the accused persons i.e. accused no.1 M/s.Nehru Place Hotels Limited, accused no.2 Amit Rai Sood, accused no.3 Yoginder Dhawan, accused no.4 Rohit Kumar, accused no.5 Devender Kumar Bajaj, accused no.6 Sheela Ahuja and accused no.7 Ashok Kumar.However, no culpability of the Office of Minister of Transport and Power, NCT, Delhi could be made out, since in the fancy number allotment slip itself, it was mentioned that the said Crl.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 4 of 11 allotment is meant only for non transport/non commercial category and not for commercial vehicles.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 4 of 11Since this Court is a Special Court to deal with cases pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act, let the file be sent to the Court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi along with all the documents for proceeding further as per law."The learned Special Judge, CBI sent the matter to the Court of learned CMM.The learned CMM on receipt of the matter, proceeded with the mater and passed the order dated 9th April, 2013 which reads as under:-"Heard and perused.Vide the order dated 12.03.2013 Ms.Swaran Kanta Sharma, ld.Special Judge, CBI-05, PHC, New Delhi has held that there is a prima facie case under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC against all the accused persons.In view of the record and the above said order, cognizance of the offences u/s 420/120-B IPC is taken.SPP for CBI has stated that the accused persons were not arrested during investigation.The accused persons be summoned through IO Inspector Shehnaz Khan and put up for report on 17.07.2013."The grievance of the petitioner is of two fold.The learned Special Judge was competent and has discretion either to return the charge sheet to the investigating agency or send it to the competent court to deal with the matter, in view of Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 10 of 11 influenced by the order dated 12th March, 2013 of learned Special Judge, CBI, shall pass the order afresh for taking cognizance and issuance of the summons to the accused persons, as per the observations made above.M.C. Nos.2633/13, 2634/13, 4590/13, 5382/13 & 5388/13 Page 10 of 11	['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.
143,043,283	and 21025 of 20181.The Sub Inspector of Police,http://www.judis.nic.in 2 City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepary, Chennai – 600 007T.Chandrasekaranhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 For Respondents : Mr.The State of Uttarakhand & Anr.in Crl.The same kind of transaction was done by the first and second accused with several other vendors and various sale transactions were effected to the company, namely IVRCL Companyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 through the second respondent.Thereafter the said D.Sundarambal executed power of attorney in favour of one, Shanmugam who is the Deputy General Manager of the Company to register his land measuring to an extent of 5.09 acres.Subsequently, the second respondent found that the said D.Sundarambal has no right to sell the land except 5.09 acres out of 20 acres thereby the first and second accused cheated the second respondent through forged and fabricated relevant documents and misappropriated to the tune of Rs.2.59 crores.The pending of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 proceedings would not serve any purpose.Further the parties in these Criminal Original Petitions have filed joint memo in each O.P.'s., and the same reads as follows:Joint memo in Crl.lok Crl.O.P.Nos.16055 and 16349 of 2017 & 21025 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11413 and 11414 of 2018O.P.No.16055 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and subsequently quash the charge sheet vide CC.No.6084 of 2016 pending before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet in Crime No.4 of 2014 dated 11.11.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.O.P.No.16349 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.184 of 2014 on the file of the City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepery, Chennai.PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.21025 of 2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed by the first respondent herein in CC.No.6084 of 2016 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet insofar as the petitioners herein.For Petitioners : Mr.D.O.Kaviyanathan in Crl.O.P.Nos.16055 of 2017 for M/s.Nathan and Associates and 16349 of 2017 For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21025 of 2018 : Mr.S.Sathyaseelan for Mr.O.P.No.21025 of 2018 Additional Public Prosecutor and 16349 of 2017 for R1 : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran for R2 COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.6084 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and to quash the FIR in Crime No.184 of 2014 on the file of the City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepery, Chennai.The respective learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire matter has been settled between the parties by way of amicable settlement.To that extent they also filed joint memo of compromise in all the OP's.Therefore, they sought for quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.Nos.6084 of 2016 and Crime No.184 of 2014 on compromise.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the case has been registered as against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 419 and 420 I.P.C. r/w 120(b) I.P.C. and 114 I.P.C. as against the petitioners and charged for the same offences and filed final report.The same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6084 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.He further submitted that the petitioners committed very grave and serious offence.He submitted the particulars of forged property document of the original owner and accused as follows:A.No.465 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 and vehemently opposed the quashment of the entire proceedings.Heard the respective learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.The petitioners are charged for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 419 and 420 I.P.C. r/w 120(b) I.P.C. and 114 I.P.C. and the same has been taken for cognizance in C.C.6084 of 2016 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.Now the petitioners have entered into compromise with the second respondent defacto complainant and also filed joint compromise memo before this Court.All the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant are presenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 today.This court also enquired the parties about the compromise and parties agreed for compromise and on their consent joint compromise memo entered between them.The second respondent defacto complainant also has no objection to quash the entire proceedings since the matter has been settled between them.A.No.465 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019, wherein it is held as follows:Having heard the learned counsel on both sides we have perused the impugned judgment and also other material placed on record.It was the case of the prosecution that in the beneficial scheme introduced for poor persons under residential scheme an amount of Rs.9800/- was sanctioned during the year 1991-92 to the complainant.It is the specific case of the complainant that though she was to be paid entire Rs.9800/-, but appellant misled her and procured her signature and made payment of only Rs.4000/- and he has utilised rest of the amount for himself for his personal benefit and gain.PC, still discretion can be exercised by the court having regard to nature of offence,http://www.judis.nic.in 8 as such it is rightly held in the impugned judgment that as the offence for which appellant was convicted and sentenced, it will have its own effect on the society at large.In view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order rejecting the application for compounding, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in not accepting the application filed for compounding the offence."In the above case, the accused committed offence under Section 420 I.P.C. In the beneficial scheme introduced for poor persons under residential scheme was sanctioned and the accused after procuring their signatures made payment only half of the amount from the sanctioned amount.The rest of the amount, the accused utilised for his personal benefits and gains.Therefore, it is construed as offence as against the society at large.As such, their petitions for compounding is rejected.In the case on hand, the allegations as against the petitioners are that the first accused approached the second accused and stated that one Mrs.D.Sundarambal was lawful owner of the 20 acres and offered to sell the same at the rate of 31.5 lakhs per acre.On the said submission the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,09,00,000/- in favour of the said D.Sundarambal.In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court.It is further stated that he and the appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully.He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the appellants.State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise.The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the appellant and the second respondent for quashing of the proceedings."It is also relevant to cite the judgment reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the case of Narinder Singh Vs.State of Punjab, which reads as follows :-Therefore, to secure ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court, this Court is inclined to allow these criminal original petitions as such the proceedings in CC.No.6084 of 2016 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and FIR in Crime No.184 of 2014 on the file of the City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepery, Chennai is quashed insofar as the petitioners herein and the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise shall form part and parcel of this Order.Each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as costs, to the orphanage viz., CHILD situated at No.647, Kadappa Road, Madhanakuppam, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu (Ph.No.9841656103), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a photocopy of the receipt along with a memo reporting compliance in the Registry.With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.12.04.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 211.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Counterfeit Currency Wing, Crime Branch CID, Chennai 600 008The Sub Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepary, Chennai – 600 007The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, SaidapetThe City Crime Branch, Team IV, EDF Wing II, Vepery, Chennai.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madrashttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.	['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
143,056,329	(Passed on the day of October, 2013) The applicants have preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of a criminal case registered at crime No.1/2013 before Police Station Mahila Thana, Sagar for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 376/511, 294 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The respondent No.2-:- 2 -:-C.No.1053 of 2013 was sent to her parents' house in the month of July, 2010, when she was pregnant for 4 months.Thereafter, she came back to the applicants' house on 13.5.2012 and younger son of the applicant No.1 was also brought to the house of the applicants.On 7.10.2012, the respondent No.2 was again sent to her parents' house at Bhopal.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant No.1 as well as the respondent No.2 are doctors.The behavior of the respondent No.2 was troublesome to the family of the applicants and therefore, she left the house of the applicants in July, 2010 on her own.Thereafter, second son was born to the respondent No.2 but, she did not prefer to visit the applicants' house.The applicant No.1 has sent various intimations and reports to the police from time to time.On 10.6.2010, he gave a report to SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Sagar that there was a possibility of lodging a fake-:- 3 -:-Again on 6.10.2012, a complaint was sent to IG, Sagar.On 31.12.2012, intimation was given to SHO, Police Station Rahatgarh, District Sagar for getting security.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that father of the respondent No.2 is a resourceful person.He is editor in some political newspaper and he got the matter registered at Bhopal and thereafter, it was transferred to Sagar.It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 had written a letter, Annexure P/5, in which everything is clear and it would be apparent that no harassment was done by the applicants.A false FIR was lodged against the applicants.The learned counsel for the applicants gave an example that the applicant No.5 was not at all involved in any crime.However, he was also added as an accused.Union Territory of Chandigarh", [(2008) Cri.-:- 4 -:-If she was so tortured then, it was not possible for her to go to the house of the applicants on her own, without getting any security or resolution.Her visit by her own indicates that she did not have any fear from the side of the applicants and she was sure that she would be accepted by the applicants.Thereafter, the applicants accepted her and they also brought the second son to Sagar.-:- 8 -:-If the remaining documents are considered as such, which are police reports sent by the applicant No.1 to various authorities of police from time to time then, it appears that Annexure P/6 was written to IG, Sagar, so that before leaving of the applicants for Haj, the respondent No.2 may be sent to Bhopal but, by writing such an FIR, it cannot be said that-:- 9 -:-C.No.1053 of 2013 the respondent No.2 had quarrelsome behaviour with the applicants.It appears that no notice of talaq was received by the respondent No.2 and she could get the knowledge of such notice when she came to Sagar on 13.5.2012 and the applicant No.1 had convinced her by fixing a meeting with-:- 10 -:-C.No.1053 of 2013 Mufti that a divorce took place between the parties.After getting the knowledge of alleged talaq and when she was thrown from the house on 7.10.2012, the respondent No.2 could understand about the behaviour of the applicants and therefore, she had no option, except to lodge an FIR about the harassment done by the applicants.She was ousted from the house on 7.10.2012 and she had lodged an FIR within 3 months from her last harassment.-:- 12 -:-Similarly, the respondent No.2 has alleged much about the applicants No.1 to 4 for the period which ended in July, 2010 but, as discussed above, such allegations are not correct.The conduct of the respondent No.2 indicates that she had no harassment till 13.5.2012 and she came to the house of the applicants on her own.In the FIR, Ex.P/1,-:- 13 -:-C.No.1053 of 2013 there is no specific allegation of harassment against the applicant No.4 that she harassed the respondent No.2 in any manner.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants No.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed, whereas the petition for the applicants No.4 and 5 is hereby accepted.	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,306,494	Besides the UTPs falling in above categories, those inmates who are undergoing Civil Imprisonment can also be considered for 'interim bail' of 45 days.It has further been resolved that following category of UTPs, even if falling in the above criterion, should not be considered:-(i) All inmates who are undergoing trial for intermediary/large quantity recovery under NDPS Act;(ii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Section 4 &6 of POCSO Act;(iii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial for offences under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D and 376E and Acid Attack;(iv) Those UTPs who are foreign nationals;(v) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act)/ PMLA ; and W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 7 of 15W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 7 of 15(vi) Cases investigated by CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell Police and Terror related Cases, cases under Anti- National Activities and Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act etc."A further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the said guidelines are wholly arbitrary and that the same is an irrational classification of persons in judicial custody infringing thus the rights of the petitioner who is immune compromised and is likely to be adversely affected by it if he contracts the fatal Coronavirus.and that the said status report indicates that at present the general condition of the petitioner is stable and all prescribed medications are being provided to him from the Jail Dispensary itself.The details of the said medical status report dated 15.05.2020 are to the effect:"Sub: Medical status report of inmate Malvinder Mohan Singh S/o Dr. Parvinder Singh.On the same day medical examination was done, he gave no fresh complaint, no history of chronic illness, no history of any drug abuse.On examination he was conscious and oriented, vitals stable and systemic examinations were within normal limit.On local examination there was no fresh external injury seen.The inmate patient has been visited at Dispensary Central Jail No.8/9 for the complaints of loose motion, cough with expectoration, Low Backache with bilateral shoulder pain, he was examined on all the occasions and advised medications accordingly.At present, the general condition of inmate is stable.All prescribed medications are being provided to him from Jail Dispensary itself.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 14 of 15The Crl.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 5 of 15The petitioner has further submitted that the guidelines made by the Hon'ble High Powered Committee of this Court on 28.03.2020 vide which it has been stipulated to the effect:"ITEM NO.3:- DETERMINING FRESH CATEGORY OF UNDER TRIAL PRISONERS WHO CAN BE RELEASED ON INTERIM BAIL':Kanwal Jeet Arora, Member Secretary informed the Committee, that immediately on receipt of letter from Govt. of NCT of Delhi regarding formation of present Committee, he on being directed by Hon'ble Chairperson had requested D.G.(Prisons) through the letter dated 26.03.2020 to furnish requisite information for the impact analysis on the proposed relaxed criterion of under trial prisoners.It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been suffering from acute attacks of Gastroenteritis and haemorrhoids which were infected.On behalf of the State it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Rahul Mehra that the prayer made by the petitioner seeking grant of interim bail/ parole cannot be considered by this Court in view of the minutes of meeting of the Hon'ble High Powered Committee dated 28.03.2020 in as much as the case of the petitioner specifically falls within the domain of alleged commission of economic offences and thus he is not entitled to be released on parole/ interim bail despite the prevailing pandemic.It was further submitted on behalf of the State placing reliance on the status report W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 8 of 15 dated 15.05.2020 submitted by the Superintendent Jail, Central Jail No.8/9, Tihar Jail, Delhi to the effect that the petitioner herein is lodged in the Tihar Jail in the cases i.e.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 8 of 15ECIR/05/DLZO-II/2019, FIR No. 50/19, US-FIR No. 189/19, US- 409/420/120B IPC, PS- EOW, NDOH-20.05.2020."On 30.11.2019, 14.12.2019, 11.01.2020, 18.04.2020, 25.04.2020, 09.05.2020, inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Orthopedic as a follow up case of Low Backache with radiculopathy, Neck pain, B/L shoulder pain with B/L knee pain, he has been examined and advised Physiotherapy & medications accordingly.On 30.03.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Medicine for the complaint of Loose stools, pain on defecation, congestion in chest, pain in gums, orthostatic hypotension and alleged history of fissure in ano with history of left knee arthroscopy, he has been examined and advised RBS Charting and medications accordingly and also advised to review with old medical report.On 08.04.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Ophthalmology as a case of refractive error with presbyopia, he was examined and advised to wear prescribed bifocal glasses.On 09.04.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Medicine as a case of recently detected DM-II on the basis of RBS Charting, HbA1c-6.4% and history of hypothyroidism, he was examined and advised blood investigations and blood investigations accordingly On 20.04.2020, 27.04.2020, inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Medicine as a case of DM-II with hypothyroidism and complaint of constipation, no bleeding manifestation and urinary incontinence he was examined and advised blood investigations and medications accordingly.Blood investigations were done on 21.04.2020 which reveals TSH-6.94 iu/ml.On 27.04.2020, 11.05.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by Jail Visiting SR ENT for his complaint of Vertigo and nasal blockage, he has been examined and advised medications accordingly.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 10 of 15On 11.05.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Medicine for his complaint of rash with irritation in groin region with excessive sweating and alleged history of arthroscopy left knee, he was examined and advised medications accordingly.On 14.05.2020 inmate patient was reviewed by jail visiting SR Medicine as a case of Dm-II with hypothyroidism with fissure in ano, he was examined, on examination RBS-115mg/dl, BP-114/70mm/hg and advised ECG and medications accordingly and also advised to review SR Surgery.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 11 of 15W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 12 of 15It is essential to observe that vide minutes of meeting dated 18.04.2020 i.e. after the meeting dated 28.03.2020, the Hon'ble High Powered Committee of this Court has reiterated to the effect:"It has further been resolved that following category of UTPs, even if falling in the above criterion, should not be considered :-(i)Those inmates who are undergoing trial for intermediary/ large quantity recovery under NDPS Act ;(ii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act;(iii) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial for offences under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D and 376E and Acid Attack;(iv) Those UTPs who are foreign nationals ;(v) Those under trial prisoners who are facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) / PMLA, MCOCA ;(vi) Cases investigated by CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell of Delhi Police, Crime Branch, SFIO, Terror related Cases, cases under Anti-National Activities and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc."It is essential to observe that during the course the hearing of the present proceedings, it was suo moto by this Court brought to the notice of both the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Rahul W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 13 of 15 Mehra that in Writ Petition Civil Diary No.10829/2020 vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner thereof who had challenged the criterion of the Hon'ble High Powered Committee of this Court dated 28.03.2020 putting an embargo to the release on interim bail/ parole of under trials in cases of alleged commission of economic offences and whereby vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said writ petition thus granted the prayer of the petitioner thereof to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to prefer a representation before the Hon'ble High Powered Committee of this Court.W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 13 of 15Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that merely because another litigant had withdrawn the prayer made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitting in relation to the alleged arbitrariness of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble High Powered Committee in relation to the economic offences, the same cannot apply qua the submissions made by the petitioner, nevertheless, it is essential to observe that in as much as there are allegations against the petitioner of the alleged commission of economic offences inter alia punishable under the PMLA Act, 2002 as also punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or that which may extend to 10 years and to a fine and thus as the case of the petitioner clearly does not fall within the parameters of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Powered Committee of this Court dated 28.03.2020 nor within the guidelines of the Hon'ble High Powered Committee laid down on 18.04.2020 referred to hereinabove, coupled with the factum that the W.P.(CRL) 814/2020 Page 14 of 15 status report dated 15.05.2020 that is of date as received from the Medical Superintendent of the Central Jail No.8/9, Tihar Jail brings forth that the condition of the applicant is stable, there is no ground whatsoever for the grant of interim bail / parole as prayed on behalf of the petitioner.	['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
143,070,412	In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Her MLC (Ex. PW14/A), recorded on 9th April, 2005, at 03.10 A.M, mentions that she was brought to the hospital by her mother Kiran.A. 1090/2011 Page 1 of 18 She expired on 9th April, 2005 at 15.00 Hrs. As per Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW23/A), cause of death was shock, caused by ante-mortem thermal burn injuries.The percentage of burn injuries, on the body, was 95% and she had epidermal to dermoepidermal burns, all over the body, except on parts of the scalp and pelvis.Dr. Alaxender (PW-23), Sr.Special and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, who had conducted the post mortem on deceased's body, proved that the post mortem opinion (Ex. PW23/A) was written and signed by him.He opined, before the court, that 95% burn injuries cannot be caused by the accident mentioned, in the alleged history, given in the MLC - Ex. PW14/A. For the sake of convenience we are reproducing the said portion of the MLC below:-Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 1 of 18"Alleged history of sustain accidental thermal burns when kerosene oil can which was kept at on top of almirah, where she was sleep, fell over her and a burning mosquito coil was kept there and her clothes caught fire and she sustained burns"3. PW-23 similarly avers, in his report (Ex. PW23/C), where his opinion was sought by Insp.Mohd. Iqbal (PW-24), regarding whether the injuries mentioned in the Post Mortem Report support the alleged history, given in the MLC.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 2 of 18It has been proved beyond doubt, that the cause of death, as recorded in the aforesaid statement ( MLC Ex. PW14/A) is incorrect and untrue.Kiran (PW-3) was the deceased's mother who averred that her daughter Shashi married, the appellant, in the year 1994 and had two children- Karan and Arjun.The daughter's family resided at D-4/39 Sector 20, Rohini.The deceased Shashi often complained, to her mother, that the appellant was an alcoholic who resorted to physical violence against her.In the intervening night of 8th & 9th April, 2005 at about 1.30 A.M., Arjun, the deceased's son, had called PW-3, on telephone, and revealed that Shashi had received burn injuries and PW- 3 should immediately reach Brahm Shakti Hospital.PW-3, along with her husband, reached Brahm Shakti Hospital and saw the burned body of Shashi.Appellant Subhash was taking her to Safdarjung Hospital, on a three-wheeler.PW-3 sat in that three wheeler scooter, with the deceased and the appellant, while her husband Nand Kishore and son Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 3 of 18 Kamal reached Safdarjung Hospital, separately.Shashi was unconscious in the auto and did not regain her conscious, at any later time.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 3 of 18The two children, Karan and Arjun, had appeared as PW-4 and PW-17, respectively.The Court first verified, by putting forth few questions to PW-4, whether, in view of his age, he was competent to be examined.In his examination-in-chief, recorded on 15th February, 2008, he had affirmed that his father, the appellant whom he identified in the court, consumed liquor.PW-4 disclosed that Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 4 of 18 his father had poured kerosene from a can, on his mother, and had set her on fire.PW-4 professed that he had seen the incident.The appellant tried to extinguish the flames when he realized that Shashi was completely burnt.PW-4 telephoned his grandmother, Kiran, and informed her that his mother was being taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital.His statement, was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13th April, 2005, marked Ex PW4/A. He identified his signatures (on Ex. PW4/A) in Hindi and English.In the cross-examination, conducted on 15th February, 2008, PW-4 denied being tutored by his maternal grandmother, though he admitted that he was staying at his maternal grandparent's house.In the cross-examination, interestingly, no direct questions, relating to actual occurrence and that the appellant had not poured kerosene and deliberately burnt Shashi, were put to him.PW-4 denied that his father was implicated on the suggestion of his grandparents and that his father, the appellant herein, had not burnt his mother.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 4 of 18By 29th January, 2011, PW-4 was 15 years of age and he took a complete summersault, from Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 5 of 18 his previous statements.He purported that he and his younger brother had slept, in the back room, by 9.00/9.20 PM, on the night of the incident and the front room was not visible to them.In the intervening night on 4th and 5th April, 2005, his father woke the two children up, at 12.30 or 1.00 A.M., and stated that their mother had received burn injuries and was being taken to the hospital.PW-4 states that they were asked to sleep in the house of Suman Aunty and he was not aware about what had happened between his parents.He denied that there was any quarrel between his parents and alleged that the police, when his statement was recorded, had handed over a paper and had asked him to narrate from that paper.PW-4 asserts, the police had threatened him, and his brother, that they would be put behind bars, if they don't depose accordingly and therefore, whatever he had stated earlier, before the court, was tutored by the police.However, PW-4 could not name any police officer, who had threatened him, and agreed that he had not disclosed to the Judge that he was being pressurized by the police.PW-17 followed his parents to the room.His father poured kerosene, from the can, on his mother and set her on fire.When his mother was burning, she threw her chunni away and rubbed her body on the wall, in order to extinguish the fire.PW-17, on the other hand, in the cross-examination had stated that he saw that his mother had gone to the kitchen where she caught fire.This is contrary to what had been stated in the MLC, that kerosene can fell on the deceased and a burning mosquito coil was lying there which led to accidental fire, burning Shashi.The statements of both PW-4 and PW- 17 were recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by Nirja Bhatia (PW-21) Metropolitan Magistrate.Statements of Karan and Arjun, Ex. PW4/A Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 11 of 18 and PW20/B, have been proved by her.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 11 of 18He has stated that he had taken his wife, with burn injuries, at about 1.30 AM to the hospital."Q. 42 Have you anything else to say?I have been falsely implicated in this case.On the day of incident I was sleeping and at about 12.30 a.m. I got up after hearing the cries of my wife, I saw that my wife was burning, I tried to extinguish the fire and due to that I also received burn injuries.Ultimately I succeeded in extinguishing the fire by wrapping the blanket around my wife.I took my wife to the Brahm Shakti hospital on the scooter of one Vishal and on the way to hospital my wife told me that she received burn injuries due to falling of kerosene oil and burning of mosquito coil clothes of my wife caught fire and she screamed due to burn injuries and I got up and tried to save my wife."Dr. Abhishekh Sharma (PW-14), working as Senior Resident in Safdarjung Hospital, had prepared the MLC (PW14/A).Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 12 of 18Suman (PW-9), a neighbour, resided at D-4/24 Sector 20 Rohini, Delhi.She deposed that the intervening night of 8th & 9th April, 2005, at about 1.00 AM/1.30 AM, she heard cries of a male and a female.Subhash, the appellant and their neighbour, knocked at Suman's door and told her that his wife had received burn injuries.Subhash and her son Vishal had taken Shashi to the hospital, on a two wheeler scooter.Thereafter, maternal uncle, of the two children, took them home.Vishal appeared as PW-10 and made a similar statement that he, along with Subhash, had taken Shashi to Brahm Shakti Hospital.Constable Dalbir Singh (PW-11), had taken photographs (Ex. PW11/A to PW11/E).The photographs, in question, contradict the stand taken by the appellant.A bed is clearly visible in the photograph PW11/A. The bed and the bed cover etc. thereon were not burnt.ASI Chandan Singh (PW-13) has stated that he visited the deceased, at Safdarjung Hospital, and collected her MLC Report.At that time, the deceased was unfit for statement.Thereafter, he went to the house of the deceased.It was open and nobody was there.He observed smell of kerosene in the room and one yellow colour plastic can was lying there.He found few burnt clothes and one burnt blanket in the house.In the cross-examination, he clarified that he had not seen the plastic can of yellow colour in the room.We may record that plastic cans are visible in the photographs but they are of white colour.PW-13 has stated that he had forgotten Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 14 of 18HC Bijender (PW-16) visited the spot i.e. the house No. D-4/39 Sector 20, Rohini and in the first room he found some burnt clothes, i.e. shirt, baniyan, T-shirt and a blanket.Crime team was called and photographs were taken.He did not find any eye-witness at the spot.He remained at the spot, while the Investigating Officer had gone to the hospital.The burnt items were smelling of kerosene and were seized.Kiran's (PW-3) statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.HC Sunil (PW-20) was part of the investigating team, along with ASI Chandan Singh and I.O. SHO Mohd. Iqbal.On identification, by Nand Kishore (PW-5), the appellant was arrested at 6.10 A.M. vide arrest memo (Ex. PW5/B).On the basis of the disclosure statement, kerosene can, which contained some kerosene and smelled of it, was found in the DDA Park, near the house (Seizure Memo Ex.PW5/D).The appellant Subhash stands convicted, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for having committed murder of his wife Shashi Sharma, in Sessions Case No. 80/2010, arising out of FIR No. 561/2005, Police Station Sultan Puri.He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 2 of 18Statement of PW-23, in the court, and his written opinion remain uncontested.He was not subjected to any cross-examination.On 9th April, 2005, in the evening, Karan and Arjun revealed to PW-3 that, before the incident, the appellant had consumed liquor and had beaten Shashi.Thereafter, the appellant poured kerosene on Shashi and set her on fire.PW-3's statement to the police (Ex. PW3/A) bears her signature and she stood by her stand, in the cross-examination.There is no reason to disbelieve the statement.She vehemently denied that Shashi had an accidental death.She reiterated that her cross- examination was true and correct and she had not deposed a false statement or had made a statement in anger.He admitted that his Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 6 of 18 statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded and signed by him only after he had said that it was correct.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 5 of 18Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 6 of 18PW-17 averred that, on 8th April, 2005, his father came drunk to the house, at late night, and started a quarrel with his mother.His father i.e. the appellant asked his mother to leave and go to her parents' house, on which, Shashi PW-17's mother, came out in the street, holding PW-17 by the hand.The father also came out and then dragged his mother back to the house.In order to save her, his father put a blanket over his mother.His father deliberately got his hand and some of his body parts burnt, while hugging her.Some boys, living near their house, were called and his mother was moved to Brahm Shakti Hospital, on scooter.He telephoned his maternal grandmother and informed that his mother has been moved to Brahm Shakti Hospital.On the date of his examination, i.e. 16th May, 2009, PW- 17 was 12 years of age and, before he was examined, several questions were put forth, to satisfy that the witness comprehends the questions and can give rational answers.Thereafter, PW-17's cross-examination Crl.Like PW-4, in his cross-examination on 29th January, 2011, PW-17 changed his stand obsequiously to save his father i.e. the appellant.He purports that, on the day of the incident, his father had asked his mother to warm the food and at that time PW-17 was not asleep.His mother went inside the kitchen and, after few minutes, they heard his mother crying.PW-17 rushed towards the kitchen and found that his mother's body was in flames.His father tried to save his mother and, hence, sustained burn injuries on his hand and belly.However, in cross- examination, PW-17 admitted that his parents had quarreled, prior to the incident.He was not aware as to where his mother was taken for treatment and has stated that his mother was not set ablaze by his father but had sustained burn injuries while warming the meal, on the stove.According to him, his parents had a cordial relationship.He denied that his statement was recorded by the police.He stated that he had previously deposed before the court, at the instance of the police, who had met him outside the court.On being re-examined by the public prosecutor, PW-17 accepted that he had made a statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate (PW21/C) on 13th April, 2005, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that he had created a new story, at the instance of his Nani, to save his father.However, he accepted that he had not made a written complaint, to any authority, that he had been tutored by the police.Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 7 of 18Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 8 of 18In the cross- examination, he has stated that the patient Shashi had herself given the alleged history, recorded in the said MLC, and at that time she was fit to Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 12 of 18 make a statement.MLC Report (Ex. PW 14-A) notes that the deceased had suffered injury at 1.00 AM and the admission was at 3.10 A.M., on the same date.The goods were lying scattered.He recorded statement of Kiran (PW-3), on this basis rukka was prepared and FIR was registered.Thereafter, he recorded statement of Arjun and Karan.Subsequently, the appellant made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW5/B) and, on the basis of disclosure statement, one plastic can of yellow colour was recovered from the park.A. 1090/2011 Page 14 of 18 some facts in his examination-in-chief.He was recalled for further cross-examination but there was nothing in his cross-examination to dent or create doubt about the prosecution case.In the cross- examination, he reiterated that no kerosene can was lying on the spot and the yellow can was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant.Disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded at 6.15 A.M., at the spot, while sitting at the footpath.A. 1090/2011 Page 15 of 18Inspector Mohd. Iqbal (PW-24), the SHO and the Investigating Officer, inspected the spot before the crime team reached.He has stated that previous Investigating Officer, ASI Chandan Singh, had partially completed investigation and had lifted few articles from the spot i.e. burnt chunni, shirt, T-shirt and one blanket.He recorded statement of Karan and Arjun, both sons of the appellant Subhash.Statement of Nand Kishore (PW-5), father of the deceased, was also recorded.Appellant Subhash was arrested at the pointing out of PW-5, and on the basis of the statement of Subhash, the appellant, the kerosene can was recovered from DDA park, seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D. PW-24 also proved the prosecution version and recognized the plastic kerosene can, in the court.He has stated that, at the spot where the incident occurred there were burn marks, on the wall and the floor, and smell of kerosene was present.There is no doubt that plastic can was recovered, in the early morning on 9th April, 2005 at about 6.15 AM, at the instance of the appellant.Crime team, as noticed, had reached the spot immediately and they have not mentioned regarding presence of any plastic can with kerosene.There were no burn marks, in the kitchen and bathroom, as per Mohd. Iqbal (PW-24).He averred that he could not record the deceased's Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 16 of 18 statement, because the Doctor told him that she was not fit for statement.A. 1090/2011 Page 16 of 18Nand Kishore (PW-5), father of the deceased, had gone along with his wife Kiran (PW-2) and son Kamal to Brahm Shakti Hospital and to Safdarjung Hospital.His daughter Shashi was unconscious, when he met her, and she was taken in three wheeler scooter to Safdarjung Hospital from Brahm Shakti Hospital.On 10th April, 2005, Subhash was arrested and, thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement made by him the kerosene can was recovered from the park.He has signed the seizure memo Ex. PW5/D.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of his wife Shashi Sharma.We also uphold the order of sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-.We, however, modify direction of the trial court and hold that in default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The Child Welfare Committee is called upon and required to get in touch with Karan and Arjun and take appropriate and required measures as per law to ensure that they are properly educated, taken Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 17 of 18 care of and protected.Copy of this judgment will be sent to the Child Welfare Committee.The appeal is disposed of.A. 1090/2011 Page 17 of 18(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE ( S.P. GARG ) JUDGE November 19th, 2012 kkb Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 18 of 18Crl.A. 1090/2011 Page 18 of 18	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
143,074,645	DATED :- 26.11.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Z. A. HAQ, J.) :-::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 :::On report lodged by Sau.Rajani W/o.Ashok Gabhane (mother of applicant no. 2), the Police had not registered offence and registered it as non-cognizable report.Rajani W/o.Ashok Gabhane (mother of non-applicant no. 2) had moved an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the non-applicant no. 2 (minor aged about 12 years) and prayed for directions to the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter and take appropriate action against the present applicants.By the order dated 24.03.2014, learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application filed under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the non-applicant no. 1- Police Officer to investigate the matter.On the basis of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A, 294, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24.03.2014 and registration of First Information Report by the non- applicant no 1- Police Officer, the applicants approached this Court by the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is admitted and is pending for final hearing.By the order dated 02.12.2014, this Court has granted an interim order in::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 ::: 3 crapl-325-14.odt favour of the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 :::The non-applicant no. 2 filed an affidavit sworn on 08.11.2020 stating that the Civil Suit which was pending between the parties is disposed and the non-applicant no. 2 has no grudge against the applicants and the complaint was made on her behalf due to some misunderstanding.Hence, as we find that the pendency of prosecution would not serve any purpose and it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the First Information Report registered against the applicants and consequential charge-sheet filed against them.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 :::Criminal Application No. 11/2014 on 24.03.2014 is set aside.(ii) The First Information Report No. 92/2014 against the applicants registered with non-applicant no. 1-Police Officer and the consequential charge-sheet No. 113/2014 against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati are quashed.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:18 :::	['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
143,075,804	as (Rejected) C.R.M. 10212 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.08.2019 in connection with Sarenga P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 dated 21.04.2019 under Sections 498/302B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Bharat Kumbhakar & Anr....for the Petitioners.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,816,569	This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar Vs.State of U.P. and another), whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Incharge Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.15 of 2019, relating to Case Crime No.10 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar was confirmed.Prosecurix was recovered on 08.02.2019 and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she stated that she had gone with the revisionist first to Jahangirganj, then to Azamgarh, then to Sonbhadra from where she was taken to Sonipat.The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are contrary to the parameters envisaged under the proviso to Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in the matter of grant of bail to a juvenile.Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is quoted as under :-"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.- (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:The revisionist's family is a normal, average and happy family as the social investigation report would show, though they may not be an affluent family."She remained with the revisionist for pretty long time without any resistance.Impugned orders impugned order dated 28.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar Vs.State of U.P. and another), and the impugned order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.15 of 2019, relating to Crime No.10 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar are hereby set aside.	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,822,630	And In the matter of : Ikbal Sk. @ Ikbal Sekh @ Tison Sk.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2	['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,832,257	O.P.No.7428 of 2020 07.05.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody on 21.02.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 380, 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.18 or 2020 for offence u/s 302, 380,120(B) IPC.Initially one, Ravindran lodged a complaint before respondent police stating that his foster mother Sarojammal found dead on 17.01.2020 when he was away from house.On returning home, he found that the door of the house was locked inside, and on suspicion, he jumped the compound wall and entered into house and found that the said Sarojammal had sustained head injury and was dead and she had been murdered by somebody.Initially, none of the persons were named as accused in the FIR.Then on 23.01.2020, the de-facto complainant’s father Devaraj was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody under suspicion, and the said Devaraj gave confession, in which he stated that due to land dispute between family members, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant’s brother-in-law committed the murder.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Walaja on 17.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.Thereafter confession statement was obtained from him.Apart from the confession statement of A1, there is no other material evidence to show that this petitioner also involved in the crime.Hence, he sought for bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) would submit that initially none of the persons were named as accused in the FIR.However, on 23.01.2020 when the de-facto complainant’s father Devaraj was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody under suspicious, he gave confession, thereby he stated that due to land dispute between family members, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant’s brother-in-law committed the murder.Therefore, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.It is seen that based on the confession statement of A1, the petitioner has been implicated in this case, and there is no other material evidence to show that this petitioner also involved in the crime.Further, the co-accused was already enlarged on interim bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.6022 of 2020 by an order dated 20.03.2020.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.7428 of 2020[a] the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison;[b] the petitioner shall not leave Tamil Nadu during the interregnum period;[c] the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Superintendent of the concerned prison, before release.Post the matter after eight weeks.07.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.7428 of 2020The Principal Sessions Judge Vellore, Vellore DistrictInspector of Police Latheri Police Station, K.V.Kuppam Taluk, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thorapadi, Vellore.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.7428 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lok Crl.	['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,383,483	Heard with the aid of case dairy.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicant has been arrested on 13/11/2018 in Crime No.501/2018 registered at Police Station-Sarai, Distt.Singrauli (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 341/34 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.As per the prosecution case, on 10/11/2018 at about 5 p.m., at village Katai when prosecutrix, who was going towards bank of Gopad river, on the way near Madri temple, the applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Kushwaha came and stopped her and co-accused Dhirendra molested her.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 12/12/2018 17:23:10	['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,680,875	Gulzari: A spear wound deep into the abdominal cavity penetrating the peritoneum and lacerating the large intestine and the bladder; due to the shock and haemorrhage resulting from this injury he died almost instantaneously.An altercation then ensued between Munshi and Chhotey Singh.They grappled with each other and probably exchanged some blows too.Munshi went back to his house and complained to his father, who reprimanded him and told him not to quarrel with the Thakurs.In the afternoon Sanwal, father of Munshi, and the two brothers of Sanwal, Gulzari and Copal were sitting in front of their houses.Gopal and Gulzari lived in the same house while Sanwal lived in the adjoining house.JUDGMENT B.R. James, J.The appellants in these two appeals are Charan Singh, Bachchu Singh, Ram Singh alias Ramlo, Sheo Nath Singh and Chhotey Singh, of whom Sheo Nath Singh and Chhotey Singh are the sons of Ramlo, while the other two are stated to be collaterals of the latter.They are Thakurs of village Udapur, which is four miles from police-station Kant in the District of Shahjahanpur.Charan Singh has been found guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to death, and the Sessions Judge has made the usual reference for confirmation of his death sentence.The other four appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment each.The appellants have also beien found guilty under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment each.In addition, Charan Singh, Bachchu Singh, Ramlo and Sheo Nath Singh have been awarded two years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 148 I.P.C. while Chhotey Singh has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., the imprisonment in each case having been ordered to run concurrently.Now, in the same village there resided a Dhanuk -- (a low caste people who inter alia keep pigs) -- family consisting of three brothers, Gopal, Gulzari and Sanwal, out of whom Gopal and Gulzari lived in the same house while Sanwal occupied am adjoining house.Laraiti is the wife, of Sanwal and Munshi their twenty-year old son.Medical evidence has proved their injuries to have been as follows:--Gopal: A punctured wound on the front of the left shoulder, and an abraided bruise on the left arm.Sanwal:- A two inch deep punctured wound on the back and a small incised wound on tile back of a finger of the left hand.Chameli: A 2 1/4 inch superficial incised wound on the right side of the abdomen.Laraiti: A scalp-deep contused wound, 1 1/2-inch long, on the head.The injuries of the last four persons were simple, the punctured or incised wounds being caused by spears, and the rest by a blunt weapon like a lathi.The case against the appellants may be outlined as follows.There was no previous enmity between the, parties.On the day of the occurrence earlier in the afternoon Sanwal's son Munshi was grazing his pigs at a pond situate outside the village abadi.The appellant Chhotey Singh, who is of the same age as Munshi, came up and taxed Munshi with causing damage to his sweet-potato field with his pigs.Chhotey Singh thereupon abused him, and after an exchange of abuse the two young men grappled and gavo each other a few blows with their hands.Munshi extricated himself from the fray, ran home and told his father and uncles about the incident.His father rebuked him and asked him to go back to his grazing and make sure that his pigs did not stray into Chhotey Singh's field.Alt the same time Chhotey Singh returned to his own home and apparently reported to his relatives the indignity of having been given blows by a Dhanuk.Half an hour later the three Dhanuk brothers were sitting at the entrance to their compound when the five appellants arrived in a body.Chhotey Singh carried a lathi while the other four were armed with spears.They demanded to know where Munshi was, to which Gulzari replied that Munshi was not at home but had gone out.The appellants insisted that Munshi was inside the house, and flung abuse.Gulzari objected to their use of abusive language.Incensed by this the five appellants made an onslaught on the three Dhanuk brothers.Charan Singh gave a spear thrust to Gulzari in the abdomen, as a result of which he fell down and died almost at once.The remaining appellants struck the other two Dhanuks.Their wives Chameli and Laraiti rushed out of the house to save their husbands, but they too were not spared, and were given the injuries which have already been described.The hue and cry attracted a number of villagers, on whose approach and rebukes the appellants ran away,Gopal proceeded to the police station of Kant, reached there at 5 P.M., and dictated a report of the occurrence Ex.In this report the story narrated above is found clearly described and the five appellants unequivocally named as the assailants.The report also mentions Ram Bux Jetav, Ujagar Kachhi, pitam Dhanuk, Ramie, Kahar, Kal-yan Dhanuk and "many other men of the village" as the eye-witnesses,Briefly therefore the prosecution case is that with the object of avenging the assault on Chhotey Singh (a high-caste Thakur) by Munshi (a low-caste Dhanuk) the appellants, who are Chhotey Singhhimself and his relatives, went armed with to the house of the Dhanuks and committed a riot in the course of which they murdered Gulzari and caused simple injuries to his two brothers and their wives.The appellants deny all knowledge of the occurrence and disclaim responsibility for the killing of Gulzari or the injuries sustained by the other Dhanuks.Chhotey Singh even denies his earlier quarrel with Munshi.The appellants attribute their prosecution to the enmity of one Gur Bux Singh of the village.They have not put forward any alternative version of how Gulzari met his death or how his relatives received their injuries.They have not produced any evidence in respect of the occurrence itself, but have examined one Rameshwar Singh in connection with some other matters.On behalf of the prosecution, Munshi has testified to the initial quarrel and exchange of blows between him and the appellant Chhotey Singh.With regard to the murderous assault itself, the prosecution rely on the statements of Gopal, Sanwal, Sm.Chameli, Sm.The appellants challenge the veracity of these witnesses mainly on the ground that they are Speaking under the influence of their enemy Gur Bux Singh.We have it from the lips of Ramie Kahar that there is bad blood between Gur Bux Singh and the appellant Charan Singh over Panchayat elections because Charan Singh had supported the candidate who was standing against Gur Bux Singh's son.The defence witness Rameshwar Singh speaks of the same cause of enmity but without mentioning its details.I am not prepared to take serious notice of the alleged enmity.What is of greater importance is that there is nothing whatsoever to show that the prosecution witnesses aforesaid are in any way beholden to Gur Bux Singh or are testifying under his influence.Those witnesses, it should be emphasised, are the most natural witnesses, of the occurrence, and I have already drawn attention to the fact that there was no prior enmity between them and the appellants.It would be ridiculous to suggest that the true assailants are being exonerated but innocent persons roped in for nothing.The attack took place in the innabited area of the village and consequently must have been witnessed by many persons.It therefore becomes a matter of the utmost significance that neither have the appellants put forward any alternative version of their own nor produced any eye-witness of the incident,There are; two other prosecution witnesses Matru Lal and Pitam Dhanuk, who deserve brief notice.Matru Lal declares that he saw the five appellants and a number of other Thakurs go to the house of the Dhanuks armed with spears and lathis and that a free fight between then and fifteen or sixteen Dhanuks took place; he goes on to say that on the side of the Thakurs the appellants Ramie sustained injuries.It has been suggested on behalf of the appellants that there are strained relations between Charan Singh and Baehchu Singh on the one side and Ramie and his sons on the other, and reliance is placed on a statement to this effect by the defence witness Rameshwar Singh and also on the assertion of Ramie Kahar that Charan Singh did not participate in the marriage of Ramie's son.The evidence on the point is no doubt vague, but I am prepared to accept that some friction did occur over that particular marriage.It should be remembered that the present attack was prompted by only one motive and that was the indignation caused to the Thakurs by a Dhanuk raising his hands against one of them.It was therefore just the kind of motive to induce all the appellants to collaborate with each other in taking revenge.But when the appellants reached the Dhanuks' house they found Munshi not in evidence), and suspected that he was hiding inside the house.When they taxed Gulzari and his brother with this and were met with a flat denial they used abusive language.To this Gulzari had the temerity to object.The facts were these.Ram Sakal Singh was getting the disputed plot ploughed by labourers.A. party of twenty-five or thirty persons, including Ram Rup Singh, came up aimed with spears and lathis.The assembly attacked Ram Sakal Singh, while his labourers fled.Anand Singh and other persons of the neighbourhood ran to avert the fight.Ram Rup Singh speared Anand Singh, who died as a result thereof.With these modifications I would dismiss both these appeals.They have a common sehan Shrimati Chameli, wife of Gopal, and Shrimati Laraiti, wife of Sanwal (and mother of Munshi) were inside their respective houses.The five appellants arrived.Out of them Chhotey Singh had a lathi and the other four were armed with spears.Sheo Nath Singh appellant is own brother of Chhotey Singh.Both these are the sons of Ram Singh alias Ramie Singh appellant.The other two appellants Charan Singh and Bachasingh are collaterals of Ram Singh.The appellants asked Gulzari and his brothers where Munshi was.Gulzari told them that Munshi was not at home and had gone out.This reply did not apparently satisfy the appellants, who suspected that Munshi was there inside the house.The appellants then started abusing Gulzari and his brothers.Gulzari protested.Charan Singh then gave a spear blow to Gulzari, who fell down, Bachchu Singh gave a spear blow to Gopal.Chhotey Singh struck Gopal with his lathi.Ramie Singh assaulted Sanwal with his spear.Shrimati Chamoli and Shrimati Laraiti then came out of their houses on hearing the cries of the persons who had been injured.Sheo Nath Singh then gave a spear blow to Shrimati Chameili and Chhotey Singh gave a lathi blow to Smt. Laraiti.A number of persons had come to the spot by that time.They reprimanded the appellants, who then went away.The spear blow given by Charan Singh to Gulzari caused an incised punctured wound 3/4" x l/2" x abdominal cavity deep on right side of lower abdomen 1/2" above and medial of right superior iliac spouse.The peritoneum had been punctured and the large intestines and the bladder had been laceirated.Death of Gulzari followed almost immediately and the injury was obviously sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Gopal got an incised punctured wound 1/3"x 1/4" x 1-1/2 deep on the front of the right shoulder.This was due to the spear blow which had been given to him by Bachchu Singh.The lathi blow of Chhotey Singh had caused on him an abraided bruise 1-1/2"x1/2" on the back of the left arm in the middlie.Sanwal had two injuries, both caused by a spear.The first was an incised punctured wound 1/4" x 1/8" x 2'' deep on the left side back in middle.The other was an incised wound 1/2" x 1/8" x skin deep on the back of terminal digit of left finger.Ramie Singh was responsible for these injuries.The second appears to have been received while Sanwal was attempting to catch hold of the spear in order to save himselfShrimati Chamali had a superficial incised wound 2-1/4" x 1/2" x skin deep on the right side of abdomen.It was due to the spear blow of Sheo Nath Singh.Shrimati Laraiti had a contused wound l-1/2" x 1/6"x scalp deep on the right side of head 4" above the right ear.The question is what offence or offences the various appellants can be held to have committed on the above mentioned facts.So far as Charan Singh is concerned he is undoubtedly responsible for the fatal blow which he gave with his spear to Gultzari.It is however contended on his behalf that he obviously could not have any intention to cause the death of Guizari, nor could he have any intention of causing such an injury to him which could in the ordinary course of nature cause death, He had certainly his Guteari on the abdomen with his spear but it was only by accident that the blow happened to be so forceful that it proved fatal.In the charges that were framed against them the common object mentioned was the causing of the death of Gulzari.An altercation then ensued.The two grappled with each other and probably exchanged blows also.They decided to chastise Munshi and to give him a lesson for insulting a Thakur.That appears to have been their object when they proceeded together to the house of Munshi and asked Gulzari and his brothers where Munshi was.Among the persons to be chastised was Gulzari.The weapons to be used in the chastisement included spears.There appear to be two serious difficulties in the way of accepting the prosecution suggestion about the change of the object of the assembly.In the first place it was not suggested at any stage of the trial that the appellants had one common object at one stage and that that object was altered at a subsequent stage of the incident or that at any stage the object was to chastise all members of the family of Munshi including Gulzari.No evidence of any kind was led by the prosecution to prove the alteration of the object.The case that the original object was altered and became the chastisement of the members of the family of Munshi is therefore an entirely new case which the appellants were never called upon to meet.No direct evidence has been led on the point.The only thing we know is that the appellants asked Gulzari and his brothers where Munshi was and received reply that his whereabouts were not known.They then started abusing Gulzari, who protested.The appellants thereupon began to use the weapons which they were carrying.The evidence does not show clearly whether the attack was simultaneous and if not in which order the various persons were injured.The only thing that is proved is that Charan Singh gave one blow to Gulzari, who fell down and was not touched thereafter.Bachchu Singh and Chhotey Singh each gave a blow to Gopal while Ramie Singh gave a blow to Sanwal.At that time only these three brothers were tnere.The ladies were inside their houses.They came out.Sheo Nath Singh gave a blow to Shrimati Chameli and Chhotey Singh hit Shrimati Laraiti.Can it be said on these facts that all the five appellants had the common object of chastising all the members of the family of Munshi? The facts established appear to be perfectly consistent with the case that no other common object was formed at all, and that events developed in such a way that even the original common object was forgotten and each appellant felt so enraged at the attitude which Gopal and his brothers had adopted that he began to assault the persons whom he found before himself.This could happen without the formation of a common object by the appellants.Even if each had the object of beating the person whom he attacked, it does not show necessarily that each shared the common object which they had jointly formed.A distinction exists between several persons having similar objects and all of them sharing a common object.The injuries which were inflicted on Gopal, Sanwal, Shrimati Chameli and Shrimati Laraiti stand on exactly the same footing as the injury of Gulzari from this point of view.If the spear blow inflicted on Gulzari was not given in prosecution of any common object which the appellants had formed, the injuries inflicted by the other appellants on the other four persons must also, for those very identical reasons, be held not to have been inflicted in prosecution of the common object, and must be held to be the individual act of the appellants who inflicted them.The appellants other than Charan Singh have been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C. for the injuries inflicted with spears on Gopal, Sanwal and Shrimati Chameli.So far as Bachchu Singh, Ram Singh and Sheo Nath Singh are concerned, each of them were armed with spears and caused simple hurts with those spears.They could therefore be convicted under Section 324 I. P. C. even without any help of Section 149 I. P. C. If the injuries they caused had not been caused in prosecution of any common object which they had formed, but were their individual acts they should have been convicted under Section 324 simpliciter because it was known that each of them had caused simple hurt with a cutting weapon like a spear.Under Section 323 I. P. C. Chotey Singh should be sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.In the result I would allow the appeal of Charan Singh in part, confirm his conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. but reduce his sentence to imprisonment for life.The reference made by the Sessions Judge under Section 374 Cr. P. C. should, in my opinion, be rejected.His conviction under Section 148 I. P. C. and the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for the offence are also set aside.He should instead be convicted of an offence under Section 143 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.This sentence will run concurrently with his sentence of imprisonment for life.The appeals of the other four appellants should also be allowed in part.Their conviction and sentences under Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. must be set aside.The conviction of Bachchu Singh, Ram Singh and Sheo Nath Singh under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C. is converted into one under Section 324 I. P. C. simpliciter and the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on each of them for that offence should be maintained.The conviction of Chhotey Singh under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C, should be set aside and instead, he should be convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.The convictions and sentences of these four appellants under Sections 148 and 147 I. P. C. must be set aside and instead, each of them should be convicted under Section 143 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment for that offence.The sentences of these four appellants shall run concurrently.With these modifications I would dismiss both the appeals.BY THE COURT.We uphold the conviction of Charan Singh under Section 302 I. P. C., but reduce his death sentence to one of imprisonment For life.The Sessions Judge's Reference under Section 374 Cr. P. C. in respect of him is rejected.With these modifications we dismiss boththese appeals.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,091,877	Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Shaber Jilani @ Sabber in crime no.0066/2018 registered by P.S.-Teela Jamalpura, District- Bhopal under Sections 457, 380 and 435 of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening 13th and 14th April, 2018, when victim Rajkumar had gone out of his house, petitioner Shaber broke into the house by removing the cement sheets and stole gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in cash.He also set the Almirah inside the house of the victim on fire.During the investigation, on the disclosure statement made by petitioner Shaber Jilani, an amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from him.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the incident.The petitioner is said to have made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that he, along with co-accused Sanu, had broken into the house of the victim and had stolen gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in cash.He received one silver and one gold ornaments plus 5,000/- as his share.He had buried the ornaments near ganda nala and had Rs.4,000/- at home.Rs.4,000/- carry no evidentiary value and no ornaments were recovered at the instance of the petitioner inspite of the disclosure statements.The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.He has been in custody since 24.4.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22305/2018 (Shaber Jilani @ Sabber Vs.State of M.P.) Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Shaber Jilani @ Sabber, 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 a 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, for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.06.21 22:57:17 -07'00'	['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,680,924	In that case the sanction given under Clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yam (Control) Order 1943, was in these words:Sanction to Prosecute.(signed)Contravention of the Provisions Prosecutions for:The relevant facts are briefly these.The applicant was appointed on the 1st January 1924 as an Overseer in the Upper Subordinate Engineering service of the Central Provinces and Berar, P.W.D. The Anti-Corruption Department received a complaint from one Salve, who had taken a contract for the construction of some work in the Takli Police Lines, that the applicant, who supervised the work, was in the habit of receiving bribes from contractors.On the 17th December 1947, the Executive Engineer passed an order to the effect that the applicant be relieved from his charge forthwith and placed under suspension with effect from the date of relief.The reason for taking this step was that a charge of corruption was pending against the applicant.It may be mentioned that on that very day the Chief Engineer P.W.D. granted sanction under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the applicant's prosecution in respect of anti-corruption crime No. 111/161 Indian Penal Code.The applicant was relieved on the afternoon of the 17th December 1947 and arrested on the next day and then released on bail.Eventually, the applicant was tried and convicted and sentenced of the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. He preferred an appeal against this conviction and; sentence before the Court of Session and the Additional Sessions Judge who presided over it set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant on the ground that the sanction accorded for the prosecution of the applicant was defective.The complaint of the applicant is that despite the fact that the conviction and sentence passed upon him had been set aside he continued to be under suspension which, according to him, was erroneous.He therefore wants to be reinstated in service at once and also wants to be paid arrears of his salary from the date of the suspension till the date of reinstatement.	['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,680,941	- NIL -12.A - 12 - Kazhinoor Rahuman120-B r/w 302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -201 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -13.A - 13 - Mohammed Farooq120-B r/w302Acquitted- NIL -A young girl heard her father's cry of alarm and rushed out tothe house and saw her father being attacked by a few men with knife likeweapons.She ran closer and shouted and asked the assailants to stop.Theylooked up, saw her and continued their assault and then fled the scene.She didnot know the whys and the wherefores for their acts, but she knew what she hadseen.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceasedDr.Sridhar was the town secretary of B.J.P. Party for Trichy Town and alsoactively involved in the development of Hindu Religion in Trichy.He had aclinic in Trichy.All of them are active members of a Muslim Association knownas Ul-umma.All the 13 accused hatched a conspiracy to do away with the deceasedin order to curb the development of B.J.P. Party and Hindu organisations.Theyacted in two different groups in the matter of conspiracy. A-2 to A-6functioned under the leadership of A-1 and the others functioned under theleadership of A-8-Syed Ali. A-1 to A-6 hatched conspiracy to do away with thedeceased at Asad Pallivasal at Trichy and another place known as Mukkombu inTrichy District.The other group under A-8 hatched conspiracy at Melapalayam andKeela Pallivasal in Tirunelveli and also in Trichy.On 02.02.1999 at 10.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was studyingin her house, she heard a scream.It was her father shouting "save me".This wasthe time when her father would return from the clinic.So, she went out of thegate.She saw six or seven persons stabbing her father with knife like weapons.She was standing about 100 feet away.The occurrence took place near the tubelight in front of Dr.Soundarajan's (P.W.65) house.She went forward closer tothe scene of occurrence, but stopped after a while because she was afraid.Thestreet lights, her house lights and Dr.Soundarajan's house lights were on.Inthat light, she saw the assault on her father by 6, 7 persons and shouted tothem to stop the attack.They turned and saw her.She could see them.Twocollege students (P.Ws.2 and 3) and Dr.Soundarajan's Watchman (P.W.5) werecoming towards the scene of occurrence.As soon as the assailants saw them, theywent away in their bikes.They also took her father's bike (M.O.5).Immediately,she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle Shanmugasundaram (sincedead).She informed him of the occurrence.Then, P.W.1 and Shanmugasundaramrushed back to the place of occurrence.P.W.64 - Balakrishnan, theSub-Inspector of Police at Woriyur Police Station received the Complaint andregistered a case in Crime No.59 of 1999 under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. Heinformed P.W.66 - Shivakumar, Inspector, Law and Order of the same.The printedF.I.R. is Ex.He sent the Express F.I.R through P.W.45 - Rangarajan, HeadConstable, who handed it over to Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy at 12.15 a.m.P.W.66, on receipt of the information proceeded to the scene of occurrence atmid night.P.W.46 - Perumal, Head Constable assisted him.He prepared theObservation Mahazar (Ex.P.1) in the presence of P.W.4 and another.There wassufficient light from the street light.100 feet from there, P.W.2 - DominicRajan and P.W.3 - Sahayarajan and others were gathered.Near the dead body, hefound M.O.10, the green knife cover and M.O.8, knife with broken tip.The brokentip (M.O.9) was lying next.He recovered the same.He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth (M.Os.6 and 7) in the presence of some witnessesunder Ex.P.2 mahazar.He prepared the Rough Sketch (Ex.P.69).With the help ofP.W.11 - Venkatesan, the photographer, he caused the dead body and the scene ofoccurrence to be photographed.He had taken photos from three angles and theyare marked with negatives as M.O.15 series.He had taken photographs of thecover and the broken tip (M.O.16 series), cover (M.O.17) and knife with brokentip (M.O.18).Since P.W.66 feared that there would be a law and order problembecause the deceased was a political leader, he arranged for immediate shiftingof the dead body to the Mortuary in a van through P.W.12 - Thirupathy, thedriver of the van.He recorded thestatements of P.W.4 - Shanmugam and few others.P.W.56, the then Sub-Inspectorof Police attached to Cantonment Police Station in Trichy city was in the placeof occurrence, he received the wireless message that a Hero Honda Motor Cyclebearing Registration No. TN 45 N 2711 (M.O.5) was noticed by the night bundobustpolice party near Jenny Residency Hotel, Mcdonald Road, Trichy.He proceeded tothe spot immediately and recovered M.O.5 under Mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence ofP.W.6 - Mohammed Abdullah and another witness.Thereafter, he examined few morewitnesses including P.W.6 and then proceeded to the Government Hospital andconducted the inquest on the body of the deceased from 06.00 a.m., to 09.00 a.m,during which time, he examined P.W.1 and few other witnesses.Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body of the deceased throughP.W.44 to P.W.40 - Dr. Vijayalakshmi, who was then in the Forensic Department,Trichy Government Medical College for conducting autopsy.C/s Brain was found to be pale.Multiple cutfractures of left side middle and posterior cranial fossal and pitutary fossaSV.."P.W.40 opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to multipleinjuries and injuries to the vital organs.Immediately after the occurrence when P.W.66 visited the scene ofoccurrence, he found a bunch of hair strands held in the palm of the right handof the deceased.Upon seeing the body and before sending the same for postmortem, he did not remove the same.But, he had requested P.W.40 to collect somehair without any damage.As per the said request, P.W.40 collected the saidstrands and also some hair strands from the head of the deceased for the purposeof chemical examination.Since from the investigation conducted till such time, P.W.66 wasof the opinion that more than five persons were involved in the crime.Heprepared an alternative Report by including Sections 147, 148 I.P.C also andsubmitted the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate.On 03.02.1999, he sent M.Os.1 to 10 to Court, but since the HeadClerk was on leave, they were returned.On 10.02.1999, he again re-submitted thesame material objects to the learned Judicial Magistrate through From 95 underEx.On 04.02.1999, he recorded the statements of P.W.11 - Venkatesan, P.W.8- Balakrishnan, P.W.13 - Suba.Palaniyappan, P.W.15 - Ilankumar Sampath, P.W.43- Ganesan, Sub-Inspector, P.W.45 - Rangarajan, First Grade Constable, P.W.44 -Rajendran, First Grade Constable and others.He appointed P.W.64 to go insearch of the accused.On 05.02.1999, he recorded the statements of P.W.12 -Thirupathy and others.On 06.02.1999, he received Ex.P.24, Post MortemCertificate.He continued thesearch for the accused between 07.02.1999 and 10.02.1999, then pursuant to theGovernment Order in R.O.C.No.24632/Crime/K1/99 dated 03.02.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.13Secretariat 1999, by which the investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., hehanded over the investigation to P.W.67 - Govindasamy, Inspector of Police.During his investigation, P.W.66 could not come to any definite conclusionregarding the identity of the assailants.P.W.67 took up the investigation and inspected the scene ofoccurrence.He examined P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.65, P.W.10 and others, but since theyrepeated what they had said to P.W.66, he did not record them.He sent hisofficials to gather information about the accused.They told him that they had informationabout Dr.Sridhar's death.So, he took them in custody and summoned witnesses tothe C.B.C.I.D office.In the presence of P.W.7 - Kuthas and another, at theoffice of P.W.67, A-10 - Thamimul Ansari volunteered a confession.P.W.66recorded the same in the presence of the said witnesses.From theinformation furnished by A-10, P.W.67 arrested A-13 - Mohammed Farooq at PandianStreet, Airport Kamaraj Nagar at Trichy in the presence of P.W.6 and anotherwitness.From the information furnished by A-10,P.W.67 located A-12 - Kazhinoor Rahuman near Alwarthoppu, Chinnasamy Nagar andarrested him in the presence of the same witnesses.A-12 also volunteered aconfession and the same was duly recorded in the presence of the same witnesses.On the same day, he examined P.Ws.2 and 3 again.On the same day, he submitted another alternative Report addingSections 201, 120(B) and 109 of I.P.C.On 13.02.1999, P.W.67 conducted search in the house of A-12 -Kazhinoor Rahuman in the presence of two witnesses - Pechinathan Pillai andRamachandran.But, nothing could be recovered.On the same day, he conductedsearch of the house of A-13 also in the presence of the same witnesses.But,from there also nothing could be recovered.Then, he examined P.Ws.19, 28 andfew others.He sent officers to search for the accused in hiding.On 15.02.1999,he submitted Ex.P.58 to the Magistrate Court for orders to record the statementsof A-10 and A-11 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 16.02.1999, he recorded thestatements of some more witnesses.During the course of his investigation, helearnt that A-7 had been arrested in connection with Crime No.16 of 1999 and hewas in Palayamkottai Central Jail.So, he gave a request before the learnedMagistrate No.V, Trichy for securing A-7 under P.T.warrant.On22.02.1999, at 17.00 hrs.On the same day, in the presence of P.W.6 andothers, he recovered few hairs from A-7 under Ex.He continued theinvestigation by recording the statements of some more witnesses.On 26.02.1999,he sent A-7 to the Court for judicial remand.On the same day, he recovered somestrands hair of A-11 in the presence of P.W.7 and others under Ex.P.6 and then,he sent the hair, so recovered to the Court.He sent another search party toBangalore.Saravanan, the Sub-Inspector, who went to Bangalore and recorded thestatements of P.W.33 - Haneef, P.W.34 - Manji Shahul Hameed and others andproduced the statements.On 01.03.1999, he remanded A-11 to judicial custody.On02.03.1999, he recorded the statement of P.W.22 -Mariyappa Pillai and others.On03.03.1999, he recorded the statement of P.W.61 - Muthusamy, then JudicialMagistrate No.P.W.67 learnt that A-8 was in Palayamkottai jail in connectionwith Crime No.99 of 1999 and therefore, he made a requisition to secure hispresence by a P.T.Warrant.On the same day, he took him in police custody.On10.03.1999, in the presence of P.W.6 and another he recorded his confessionalstatement.He secured some hair strands from A-8 under Ex.P.W.68 - Balusamy, Inspector took up the investigation fromhim.Therefore, he filed a petition to secure his presence byP.T. warrant.On 12.04.1999, orders were passed.In the meantime, he searchedfor the other accused, who were in hiding.Between 05.04.1999 and 14.04.1999, hewent to Bombay in search of the accused.On 16.04.1999, he gave a requisition tothe Magistrate to take A-9 under Police Custody.On 17.04.1999, he continued hisinvestigation.On 26.04.1999, A-9 was taken on police custody.On 27.04.1999, inthe presence of P.W..21 and others, A-9 gave a voluntary confessional statement.On 27.04.1999, he secured the hair strands of A-9 under Ex.P.75 before the samewitnesses.He recorded the statements Mahazar Witnesses and also P.W.10, who wasin the barber shop.On 28.04.1999, he sent A-9 to the learned JudicialMagistrate for judicial remand.On 12.05.1999, when P.W.67 was in search of the assailants, helocated A-5 - Sheik Sintha Mathar @ Jaffer @ Sintha on the Dindigul - Palanibye-pass road at Dindigul and arrested him in the presence of P.W.23 and anotherwitness.On such arrest, A-5 volunteered a confession and P.W.67 duly recordedthe same in the presence of the same witnesses.In the said statement, A-5disclosed about the place where he had hidden the knife and T-shirt.Pursuant tothe said statement, he took P.W.67 to Silk Development Office on the Dindigul -Palani Bye Pass Road and identified the small pond.P.W.60 - Rajendran andP.W.53 - Pichai Pillai, both police constables dug into the pond and searchedfor the knife (M.O.23).At about 03.15 p.m., P.W.53 - PichaiPillai took out a T-shirt (M.O.22) and the same was recovered under Ex.P.57.The admissible portion of the disclosure statement made by A-5 is Ex.Hetook some hair strands from A-5 under Ex.P.73 Mahazar.He recorded thestatements of P.W.30 - Devaraj, P.W.31 - Sivakumar, P.W.32 - Maualana Hussain,P.W.60 - Rajendran and P.W.53 - Pichai Pillai.On 13.05.1999, he sent A-5 to thelearned Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand and also forwarded the recoveredmaterial objects to the Magistrate's Court.On 13.05.1999, P.W.67 examined P.W.40 with reference to M.O.23 -Knife and recorded her statement.He gave a requisition to the Magistrate torecover the hair strands of A-10, A-12 and A-13, who were in Trichy CentralJail.On 22.06.1999, he arranged to send the blood stained earth and the sampleearth and the knife cover for chemical analysis to the Court through P.W.55 -Siddarthan.He also arranged to send the recovered hair strands for ForensicTest to the Laboratory.On 25.06.1999, he handed over further investigation toP.W.70 - Inspector Bose under Ex.P.W.70 on orders under Ex.P.77 took up the investigation.Thehair strands recovered from A-10, A-12 and A-13 under Ex.P.54 were sent toCourt.On the same day, he recorded the statements of the Wireman, Ramachandran.Herecorded the statements of other witnesses.On 12.07.1999, P.W.70 gave a requisition for conduct of TestIdentification Parade in respect of A-5 and A-7 under requisition Ex.But,it did not take place.On 29.09.1999, through P.T.Warrant, A-3was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he was formally arrestedand he was remanded to judicial custody in connection with this case also.P.W.48, who was then Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalliconducted the Test Identification Parade in the Central Prison, Trichy for A-7.P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were asked to participate in the Identification Parade.Duringthe Test Identification Parade, P.W.2 - Dominic Raja declined to identify theAccused and told the learned Judicial Magistrate that though he could identifythe assailants, he was not willing for the same as it would cause danger to hislife.P.W.3 identified A-5 - Sheik Sintha Mathar.He secured the hair of A-3 under Ex.P.14. A-3 showed the places wherethe conspiracy took place at Mukkombu.He again remanded A-3 to judicialcustody.On 13.10.1999, he gave requisition for P.T warrant in respect of A-1,who was in Chennai Central Jail.He produced him before Judicial Magistrate IV,Trichy and gave a requisition for conduct of Test Identification Parade underEx.P.Ws.1 and 2 were also present.His hair was also sent for forensic analysis.On18.01.2000, he gave a requisition for issuance of P.T.warrant in respect of A-2,A-4 and A-6, who were already in prison in other cases.He gave a requisitionfor conduct of Test Identification Parade.On information from Trichy R.D.O, hesent the Sub-Inspector along with police party and obtained statement ofapprover/accused Samsudeen under Ex.The report regarding the conduct of TestIdentification Parade for A-2, A-4 and A-6 is Ex.He also recorded thestatements of P.W.50 - Kalaivani, P.W.48 - Anandkumar, the then Magistrate, Ootyand P.W.61 - Muthusamy, the then Magistrate and also the R.D.O, P.W.41 -Kuppusamy.On 25.01.2001, the approver/accused Samsudeen volunteered to give astatement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His statement was recorded in the presenceof P.W.25 - Shahul Hameed,P.W.26 - Balusamy and P.W.27 - Gopalakrishnan.On 27.01.2000, the Judicial MagistrateIV, Trichy recorded the statement of the approver / accused under Section 164Cr.P.C. On the same day, he took A-6 in police custody.On the basis of theadmissible portion of the voluntary confession statement (Ex.P.9), P.W.39 -Abdul Razak was identified and M.O.20, Knife was recovered.He also recoveredthe hair of A-6 under Ex.P.8, Mahazar.He recorded the statements of some morewitnesses and remanded A-6 to judicial custody.On 29.01.2000, he took A-2 inpolice custody.He recovered his hair strands under Ex.He gave a petitionto enquire Samsudeen as an approver in Ex.He recorded the statements ofother witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He sent the hair strands recoveredfrom A-2, A-4 and A-6 for chemical analysis.Apart from the Mahazar witnesses,recovery witnesses etc., the Prosecution examined the following witnesses:-P.W.8 - Balakrishnan was working as an Assistant in Dr. Sridhar'sclinic.According to him, one month prior to the occurrence, two persons cameand said that they wanted to see the Doctor urgently.They took treatment butdid not make any payment and said that they would pay later.The deceased askedP.W.8 to remind him about this when they come next.He and his friends went to drink tea atMelapalayam.At that time, A-7 and A-8 were there and he heard them saying thatthey should finish off Trichy Sridhar.When P.W.35 approached them, they stoppedtalking.P.W.35 was not able to identify the accused.P.W.36 - Syed Ibrahim is a resident of Anbu Nagar, Idayarpalayam,Coimbatore.He is another key witness for conspiracy.P.W.38 - Samsudeen is the approver accused, who turned hostile.P.W.39 - Abdul Razak has witnessed the recovery of M.O.20 underEx.P.W.41 - Kuppusamy was the R.D.O at Trichy.On 23.01.2000, P.W.38came to him and said that he would tell him the truth about the murder ofDr.P.W.42 - Marimuthu was the Tahsildhar and M.O.21 was sent by him onthe requisition of the Investigating Officer (SIT).P.W.43 - Ganesan was the traffic police, who was informed by P.W.65that a person was lying with blood stained wounds.He noted down the same in theGeneral Diary and informed the same through the wire message.P.W.49 - Kamalkshi Krishnamoorthy is the Forensic Expert, who hadgiven evidence regarding the hair samples recovered from the accused to becompared with the hair found in the clasp hand of the deceased.The samples had been sent to herunder requisitions Exs.P.W.51 - Ramasamy is the Assistant in the Investigation in theCoimbatore Bomb Blast cases.P.51 to record the statements of P.W.37and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 03.02.2000, he made a similar request inrespect of other witnesses.On 05.02.2000, he re-examined P.W.10 etc., On11.02.2000, he sent the hair strands recovered from A-2, A-4 and A-6 to theLaboratory through P.W.59 - Durairaj.P.W.30 is a resident of Dindigul.In the year 1999, he lived ina portion of the house belonging to one Sivakumar.There were three separaterooms in the house.Appellants 1,2,3,4,5,and 6 are known to him.He would go to the various towns inTamilnadu to sell the magazine.He had joined the Al Umma movement, which is abanned organisation.He would collect money for the family members of the AlUmma persons who had either been arrested or had gone underground.In July 1998,A4 told P.W.36 that A1 asked him go over to Mukkombu.It is seen from hisevidence that Mukkombu was a place where the accused would meet.He had met A1to3 A5 and A6 there.He had been asked by the accused to collect some amounts forpersons who are in Coimbatore Central Prison in connection with the CoimbatoreBlast cases.This was after the bomb blast episode, P.W.36 was then asked to goto the house of one Sadakathulla in Madurai.He went there.He saw A1, A2 and 2others.A4 said that someone must be attacked in Madurai.Then A2 asked whyTrichy should be chosen.The reply was that it was in Trichy that the attempt tokill the Inspector Murali failed and also because the BJP party shows growth inTrichy and if Sridhar is killed in Trichy, this growth will be stopped.A1 saidthat they come to a decision after Ramzan.Then around 20th of January, P.W.36and accused 1 to 6 went to Mukkombu.Then P.W.36 was told that the decision tokill Sridhar had been finalized and the separate duties had also been assigned.He was asked if he would help.He refused and left.This evidence shows thethree stages of the conspiracy Mukkombu, Madurai and Trichy(Mukkombu).It alsoshows that Mukkombu was one of the meeting places of the accused.The above conversation took placebetween 20 and 22 January.He met Ansari in Salem prison.Here, A-4 had indicated that some one must befinished off at Trichy.Then A-2 had enquired "Why Trichy?".The reason given byA-4 is the growth of B.J.P. in Trichy and the failure in the attempt to killInspector Murali in Trichy.Then, A-1 had fixed the time.It had to be afterRamzan.So at this stage, the prosecution had adduced evidence regarding thereason-, "growth of B.J.P.", the place-, "Trichy", the person-, "Sridhar" andthe time-, "after Ramzan".Then, we come to the last stage before the occurrence whenP.W.36 along with A-1 to A-6 came to Trichy.Sridharhad been killed.Two days after, I went to Madurai. A-4 called me on phone andwould to see me; and asked me to go over to Thatrampalli Pallivasal at Madurai.I went there.A-6 - Umer Farook, A-5-Sheikh Sintha Madhar, A-3-Siddiq Ali and A-4 Sathik and another were there.They told me that they were angry that I didnot join on the 2nd ....." According to P.W.36, they described the occurrenceand also the manner in which A-3 sustained injuries.Thus, in our considered opinion, the lowerCourt was right in convicting A-1 to A-6 under Section 120-B read with 302I.P.C.MURDER :-She witnessed the occurrence from a distance of100 feet.The tube light in front of Dr.Soundararajan's house was burning.Shewent closer screaming, but not too close since she was afraid.At that time, herhouse lights were burning, street lights were burning and light on the compoundof Dr.Soundararajan were burning.The assault continued.She shouted "Stop".The assailants turned and looked at her.P.W.65, P.Ws.2,3 and 5 watched this.Itwas only to his house that immediately after the occurrence, A-3 had come with aRexin bag containing knives. A-4 was standing at a distance.When P.W.37 hadgone out of his house, he found A-4 with a red colour Suzuki Motor Cycle alongwith A-5. A-4 had a blood stained shirt and after getting a fresh shirt, A-4 hadleft.Thereafter, when he went to the cycle godown of one Razak, he found A-3and A-4 washing the knives.A-3 stayed at the house of P.W.37 over night.Then,he handed over the Rexin bags with six knives.The Rexin bag was later on burntby him.He handed over all the six knives to Abdul Aziz.Later on, five kniveswere abandoned and one knife was kept by Abdul Razak from whom it was later onrecovered by the police.The conduct of A-3 in coming to the house of P.W.37with blood stained shirt coupled with the blood stains found in the dress of A-4and the secret movements would further strengthen the case of the prosecutionabout their involvement in the actual commission of the crime.According to him, two days after the occurrence,A-4 spoke to him over phone and wanted him to come to Thartrampalli Pallivasalat Madurai.When he went to the said Pallivasal, he found A-3, A-4, A-6 andanother person were together.I), Trichirappalli.2. - Do - through The Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichirappalli.4. - Do - through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli.The District Collector, Trichirappalli District.The Inspector of Police, Uraiyur Police Station, Trichy.PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.Thirteen persons were charged for the offences punishable underSections 120-B, 148, 147, 302, 120-B r/w 302, 109 r/w302, 201 r/w 302 I.P.C, butone turned approver and the trial proceeded.The learned Additional District andSessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Trichirappalli disbelieved the case ofprosecution as regards Accused 8 to 13 and as mentioned in the following tabularcolumn, acquitted them; but convicted the appellants and sentenced them asunder:S.NoNameCharge (I.P.C)FindingImprisonment1.A-1 - Jahir Hussain120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife + fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year2.A-2 - Moosa @ TADA Moosa @ Syed Bai120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year3.A-3 - Siddiq Ali @ Sultan120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year201 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -4.A-4 - Sadiq @ Khan @ Rahamaddula Khan120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year5.A-5 - Sheik Sintha Mathar @ Jaffer @ Sintha120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year6.A-6 - Umar Farooq @ Moideen Abdul Khadar120-B r/w 302 ConvictedLife +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year148 Convicted2 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months302 Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year201 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -7.A- 7 - Shajahan120-B r/w 302Acquitted- NIL -Convicted1 year R.I + fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for Six months120-B r/w302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Convicted Life +fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I for one year8.A- 8 - Syed Ali @ Mulili @ Mulan120-B r/w- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -201 r/w302Acquitted9.A - 9 - Basheer Mohammed @ Manennai Basheer120-B r/w 302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -10.A - 10 - I.T @ Thamimul Ansari120-B r/w 302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -201 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -11.A - 11 - Badusha120-B r/w 302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -201 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -109 r/w302Acquitted- NIL -201 r/w302AcquittedBoth the groups, in theseparate conspiracies, planned to kill the deceased.The further case of the prosecution is that the Accused 1 to 6formed an unlawful assembly near the house of Dr.Sridhar at Annamalai Nagar,Trichy in which A-1 to A-6 were armed with deadly weapons like knives and A-7remained unarmed at about 10.00 p.m., on 02.02.1999 and in prosecution of thecommon object they attacked the deceased with weapons when he was returning fromhis clinic and caused the death of the deceased instantaneously.P.W.1 - Lakshmi Priya was a 17 year old girl at the time ofoccurrence.Her father - Dr. Sridhar, the deceased was a B.J.P supporter and hewas also running a clinic.They found the deceased was lying in apool of blood.In a short while, the police came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 identified seven persons in a Test Identification Parade.Shanmugasundaram, the brother of the deceased proceeded to anearby police station, which is at a distance of 2 K.Ms away from the place ofoccurrence.He preferred Ex.P.67 - the complaint.P.W.40, on receiving Ex.She found the following injuries:-External Injuries:-1) A curved chop wound noted over the left side frontO- parietal regionsof scalp measuring 8x4cmx bone deep - the flap was found hanging medially withthe cut portion of the underlying bone.2) An elliptical incised wound noted over the radial side of right wristregion measuring 3 x 1cm x muscle deep with a trailing abrasion of 3 cm inlength on its both ends.3) A vertically oblique scratch abrasion noted over the middle of back ofright forearm measuring 6 x 0.5cm (fresh abrasion)4) Fresh Abrasion over the dorsum of right thumb on its base measuring 2 x2 cm.5) Traumatic amputation of middle of Right thumb and the other amputatedhalf of thumb with the nail portion was brought separately.6) A stab wound noted over the left side lateral chest wall on theposterior axillary line in the 6th intercostal space - elliptical in shapemeasuring 4 x 2cm x Thorasic cavity deep.7) Incised wounds noted over:-(1) Over the base of left thumb measuring 4 x 1 x 1/2 cm (2) back of left wrist region two numbers each measuring 4 x 1/2 x 1/2and 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.(3) lateral aspect of left wrist region measuring 3 x 1/2 x 1 cm.8) Incised wound over the base of dorsum of left index finger measuring1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4cm.9) Scratch Abrasions over the middle of back of left forearm two innumbers each measuring 3 x 1/2 cm.10) A punctured wound over the back of left elbow measuring 2 x 1/2 x1/2cm.11) A cut wound over the back of let shoulder - curved - measuring 3 x 2cmx bone deep with cut fracture of superior border of scapula.12) An elliptical cut wound noted 1 cm below the wound No.11, measuring 5x 1cm x 1 bone deep with cut fracture of spinous process of scapula.13) Multiple linear scratch abrasions noted around left shoulder, leftupper arm, and left scapular area14)An wide gaping cut wound noted over the left cheek involving the lowerpart of left ear, ascending ramus of mandible and found to extend on to the leftside temporal and occipital regions of scalp measuring 20 x 4 cm x bone deepwith cut fractures of underlying maxilla, ascending ramus of mandible, mastoidprocess, temporal and occipital bones and also the underlying great vessels,nerves and muscles were also found cut.15) Another wide gaping cut wound noted 2cm above the wound no.14measuring 12x 4cm x bone deep transversely oblique in placement with cutfractures of the underlying bones; and also the underlying vessels, nerves andmuscles were also found cut.16) A Transversely oblique cut wound noted over the Right parietal regionof scalp measuring 6 x 2cm x bone deep.17) A cut wound transversely oblique over the right side occipital regionof scalp measuring 5x 2cm x bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bonesSV18) A transverse cut wound noted over the whole of both sides parietaleminence areas measuring 10 x 3cm x bone deep with cut fracture of theunderlying bone.19) A cut wound noted 3cm above the wound No.18 measuring 12x 2cmx Bonedeep with cut fracture of the underlying bone.20) A wide transversely oblique cut wound noted over the occipital regionmeasuring 17 x 3cm x Bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bone.21) An elliptical stab wound over the left side infra scapular area ofback of chest measuring 5 x 2cm x Thorasic cavity deep.22) An oblique cut wound over the left side parietal eminence area ofscalp measuring 8 x 2cm x bone deep with cut fracture of the underlying bone23) Abrasion over the upper part of right side scapular area measuring 6 x4cm.24) A punctured would over the middle of left cheek measuring 1 x 1/2 x.25) Sub conjuctival heamorrhage in both eyes noted.26) On dissection of chest and abdomen - the above mentioned.Stab woundNo.6 (external injury) was found to have entered the lower lobe of left lungthrough the 6th inter costal space.The whole lower lobe of left lung tissuewas found to have pierced through and it had further entered the aorta andinjured the same.The stab wound mentioned in the external injury No.21 wasfound to have entered the right atrium and punctured the pulmonary artery.Left side Throsic cavity contained 1500 ml of fluid blood.27) On opening the scalp and skull - scalp contusion noted over the wholescalp with cut fractured of the skull bones as mentioned above - Subarachnoidheamorrhages both sides cerebral hemispheres noted.Laceration of left sidecerebellum measuring 3 x 2 x 2cm.Then, he recorded the statements of P.W.49 - KamalakshiKrishnamoorthy, the Forensic Expert.15 days later, they cameagain.One year after the occurrence, the C.B.C.I.D enquired him and gave him 20photographs and asked him whether he identified any of the photographs ofpersons, who came to the clinic.Witness statedthat though the persons he had identified were present in Court, he was afraidto identify them.One night, sincehis house was crowded with guests who had come for Ramzan, he went to the houseof A-12 to sleep there.At the night, there was a knock on the door.When A-12opened the door, he found A-7. A-7 told A-12 "I have come to clear Dr.Sridhar'sroute".After the incident, he read in the newspaper that Dr.Sridhar had beenkilled.P.W.10 - Kumar is a barber and A-12, A-13 and A-7 used to his shopvisit as customers.In the end of the month of December 1998, A-7 brought A-9and A-10 to stay there in his shop.They stayed for two days.At that time, A-12, A-11 and A-9 also visited the shop.In January 1999, A-11 left the place.Thereafter, A-7 and A-9 told him that they were also going to back to town.Oneand half months later, this witness learnt from the newspaper that Dr.Sridharhad been killed.P.W.13 - Suba.Palaniyappan is a B.J.P party man, who had heardabout the death of Dr.P.W.14 - Sundaramoorthy was watching Television, at the time ofoccurrence, he heard some noise and came out and found the deceased with cutwounds.P.W.1 was beside him and she told him that she was going to inform heruncle about the occurrence.P.W.15 - Ilankumar Sampath merely said that he had gone to thehospital after he heard about the occurrence.P.W.16 - Surendran is the brother of Dr.Sridhar, the deceased and hecame to the scene of occurrence much later.P.W.17 - Dr. Doulath is a Doctor in Trichy Airport Kamaraj Nagar.On 03.02.1999, A-3 came to his clinic with an injury inthe left hand middle finger.He gave treatment and applied sutures.He asked A-3to come on the next day, but he did not turn up.This witness had given astatement before the Magistrate under Ex.P.W.19 - Chandrasekaran is the witness when A-6 gave his voluntaryconfession statement.He is the witness in Ex.P.W.20 - Abdul Jaleel is also the recovery witness.P.W.22 - Mariyappa Pillai has a house with four portions.InDecember 1998, A-13 asked him to let one portion for rent.He stayed for two orthree months.P.W.24 - Jayaraj is a Mazdoor in Mukkombu tourist centre.In January1999, when he was cleaning Mukkombu park, five or six persons were there andthey were taking bath in the pond.He warned them and they went away.Again,he saw them at 12.30 p.m., and they were taking bath in the pond and offeringprayers.This witness was unable to identify the accused.P.W.25 - Shahul Hameed is the witness, who had attested A-4'sstatement.P.W.26 - Baluchamy is the witness to Ex.He is a conspiracy witness.Thiswitness said that he was afraid to look at the accused in Court and to give hisanswers.P.W.27 is the witness to Ex.P.W.28 - Pechinatha Pillai is the search witness to Ex.P.W.29 - Hanifa resides in Hidayath Nagar.He owned a tea shop nearHidayath Nagar Mosque.According to him, A-12 and A-13 also resided inHidayathullah Nagar and they had tea in his shop with one Basheer.P.W.30 is atenant in a building, which has three portions.When he went there in 1997, theother two portions were vacant.In December 1998, A-6 andA-5 came in a T.V.S.Suzuki.They stayed there for three to four months.P.W.32 - Mulana Hussain lives in Dindigul Mother shah RowtharStreet.He is the driver of a Mahindra tourist van with the registration No.He had known Sirajudeen about three years ago.One person wasintroduced by Sirajudeen as Jaffer.Few days later, he came to understand thatpolice arrested one Sheik Sintha mathar and Sirajudeen.This witness was unableto identify any of the accused.P.W.33 - Haneef has a sweet shop in Bangalore.According to him, on03.02.1999, A-10 and A-11 came and asked for job.P.W.34 - Manji Shahul Hameed also claims that A-10 and A-11 came andasked him for jobs and they told him that they had not eaten two or three days.P.W.35 - Pauldurai is a resident of Thomas Street, Perumalpuram,Melapalayam and he is a mason.Continuing the Investigation, on 29.01.2000, P.W.70 recorded thestatement of Nalleswaran, P.W.37 - John Basha and others.On 30.01.2000, atabout 08.00 a.m., at the S.I.T office, he recorded the statement of A-2 in thepresence of witnesses and thereafter, he recovered the strands of hair underEx.On 31.01.2000, he gave a petition to examine the approver - Samsudeenunder Ex.On 01.02.2000, he gave a petition to record the statement ofP.Ws.17, 39 and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under Ex.On02.02.2000, he gave a petition under Ex.On 20.02.2000, he examined A-10 throughJailar Chokkalingam in Trichy Central Jail.On 21.02.2000, he examined thewitness - Jahir Hussain.On 25.02.2000, he went to Palayamkottai and there, herecorded the statement of A-11, who was in jail.On 28.02.2000, P.W.47, thelearned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the approver Samsudeen to beproduced for further enquiry.On 29.02.2000 he was produced before the Court.Further, P.W.70 recorded the statement of other officers, who had assisted himin the arrest of the accused.On 01.03.2000, he concluded the investigation andfiled the Charge Sheet.Before the Trial Court, to prove its case, the Prosecutionexamined P.W. 1 to P.W.70, marked Exs.Onthe side of the defence, no witness was examined, however Exs.D.1 and D.2 weremarked.The appellants / accused were made aware of the incriminatingcircumstances against them, who denied the same and pleaded not guilty.The learned Sessions Judge, on assessment of oral anddocumentary evidence and the materials available on record, convicted theappellants / accused 1 to 7 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment andacquitted accused 8 to 13 as mentioned above.Mr. Thirumalairaj, the learned Senior counsel in Crl.Appeal No.1807of 2003 submitted that according to P.W.65, he was the first person to see thedead body of the deceased and it was only after he came, P.W.1 and others cameto the scene of occurrence.The fact that he alone saw the occurrence could alsobe found from the fact that he was the one, who immediately informed the policepatrol.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.65 would exclude the presence of anyother eye witness.P.W.43, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in thepolice patrol room has also deposed in his evidence that he was informed byP.W.65 that one person was lying near his compound wall with bleeding injuries.Shehad come to the scene of occurrence after the attack and no reliance can beplaced on her evidence.The learned counsel submitted that P.W.5, who wasmentioned as an eye witness in the F.I.R and the Complaint turned hostile.Onthe contrary, P.W.1's name is not mentioned as an eye witnesses and therefore,her presence cannot be believed.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that theother two persons, who have said to have present also turned hostile.According tohim, the said identification parade held by the learned Judicial Magistrate wasinvalid.The Learned counsel also submitted that P.W.40 -Dr.Vijayalakshmi had stated that the hair strands in the clasped hand of thedeceased must have been snatched by him in the struggle before his death and itwould not be possible to insert them after the death.According to the learnedcounsel, more than 20 persons were examined to prove the similarity of the hairstrands in the hand of Dr.Sridhar and the witnesses, who speaks of the recoveryof hair strands in Dr.Sridhar with the hair strands taken from A-1 to A-6 and it was foundthat the hair recovered from the accused did not tally with the hair strandsrecovered from the deceased.This fact also would disprove the prosecution case.He had also seen 5 or 6 persons at the same time.In the year 1998, during the month of December, A-5 and A-6stayed in one of the rooms as tenants.They lived so for about 2 to 3 months.They were using a TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-H-8645.After some time, they changed the registration number of the vehicle as TN-58-1881 and they were using the same.From the evidence of this witness, it hasbeen established by the prosecution that the above said TVS Suzuki was used bythese two accused.PW 35 is a resident of Thomas Street, Perumalpuram inTirunelveli District.He is a mason by profession.According to him, three yearsprior to his examination in the court viz., 18.11.2002, along with Vellaiyanand Muthu, he had gone to Melapalayam Pallivasal near Thirunelveli for masonryworks.At that time, when they had gone to a nearby tea shop at Melapalayam tohave tea, they found A-7 and A-8 in the tea shop talking in low voice amongthemselves.On seeing P.W.35 and others, they did not speak for.Then, he went away.But, he did not identify A-7 and A-8 in Court during trial.P.W 36 is a very important witness.He is a purse manufacturer.PW 36 also had been selling anIslamic magazine called "Ilakkiya Solai" .He was told that hecould stay in the movement if he wished, otherwise he could leave.He learnt that Sridhar had been killed.P.W.36's evidencerings true.P.W.36 further says that two days after the occurrence, A4called him on the phone and asked him to meet him at Thatrampalli Pallivasal atMadurai.He went there and saw Accused 3,4,5 & 6 and another.Thenext day he went to the house of one Sadakathullah.There he met A1 and told himthat he could not be present on the 2nd February because he went to meet Ansariin jail.Then A4 told him how the occurrence took place, and further describedhow A1 to 6 killed Sridhar.A4 also told him that A3's left hand middle fingerwas injured at that time.He was informed that he should not whisper a wordabout this to anyone.So this is a strong piece of evidence for the prosecution.On 02.02.1999, at about 08.30 p.m., just little over one hourbefore the occurrence, A-3 had spoken to P.W.37 over the phone and he told himthat they intended to kill Dr.Sridhar and a person would approach P.W.37, and heshould permit the person to stay with him.This is just before the occurrence.Apart from a suggestion that this witness is deposing in favour of theprosecution because he has been threatened to do so, nothing contra has beenelicited in his evidence and it is proved what is stated in the chiefexamination.As we have already stated, from the evidence of P.W.36, theProsecution has proved that a conspiracy was hatched among A-1 to A-6 to doaway with the deceased.The conspiracy, according to the prosecution case wasexecuted on 02.02.1999 at 10.00 p.m. Therefore, what was said by A-3 to P.W.37would be a strong piece of evidence as provided under Section 10 of the IndianEvidence Act to prove the conspiracy.As extracted above, A-3 told P.W.37 thatDr.Sridhar would be killed and for that purpose a person would come to meet himfor whom, P.W.37 should provide accommodation.Pursuant to the saidconversation, A-3 had come after the occurrence i.e., after 10.00 p.m. on thesame day.At that time, A-4 had a shirt inhis hand, which was blood stained. A-4 wanted P.W.37 to burn the blood stainedshirt and asked for a fresh shirt.But, when P.W.37 gave a fresh shirt, A-4 keptthe blood-stained shirt away.Thereafter, P.W.37 had gone to the cycle godown ofone Razak where he found A-3 and P.W.39 were washing knives.A-3 stayed with himthe whole night.At that time, A-3 had a Rexin bag in which there were sixknives and one Lungi.He found that there was an injury to his left hand middlefinger.The presence of this injury on A-3 has been spoken to by P.W.17- Dr.Doulath, who has stated that on 03.02.1999, A-3 accompanied by oneSamsudeen came for treatment.He treated A-3 for the injury on the middle fingerof the left hand and he stitched the said wound.This condition will be satisfied even whenthere is some prima facie evidence to show that there was such a criminalconspiracy.If the aforesaid preliminary condition is fulfilled then anythingsaid by one of the conspirators becomes substantive evidence against the other,provided that should have been a statement "in reference to their commonintention".First at Mukkombu, then at Madurai and then at Trichy.With regard tothe first stage, the evidence produced by prosecution by itself may not amountto anything because it could only indicate that six or seven persons coming tothe Park at Mukkombu were talking surreptitiously and stopped talking if anyone approached them.The conduct of these said persons would best indicate thedesire to maintain secrecy.Sridhar was chosen.P.W.36 was asked to join them in their plan.But, P.W.36 went to Salem Jail to meet Ansari.A-1had become angry because of the non-cooperation of this witness.This is alsoelicited in the evidence.P.W.36's evidence indicates that specific duties wereassigned to each of them.Regarding this stage, P.W.36 had spoken of thepresence of A-1 and A-2 at Sadahathullah house and that A-4 had said "we mustfinish one of our enemies in Trichy".So, the prosecution has clearly producedthe evidence to show the conspiracy.The evidence that is before us clearlyproves that there was conspiracy.According to the defense, since P.W.36 was an accomplice and sincehe had also participated in the conspiracy, his evidence should be rejected.But, we are not persuaded to do so, for the simple reason that P.W.36 did notparticipate in the conspiracy and in its execution.According to his evidence,when he was asked to participate in the plot to kill Dr.Sridhar, he refused todo so.Thus, he can only be called as a witness, who had knowledge about theconspiracy, but he cannot be branded as an accomplice.To call a person anaccomplice, we have to see whether there is consensus ad idem between him andthe rest of the accused.If P.W.36 had participated and had also agreed with theplan to kill Dr.Sridhar, he can be held to be a party to the conspiracy as anaccomplice.But, here, though he was present at the time when there was a talkabout the plan to kill Dr.Sridhar, he did not agree for the same.To put itotherwise, since there was no consensus ad idem on the part of P.W.36, he cannotbe branded as an accomplice.According to him, when he had met A-4 in July 1998 and A-4 toldhim that A-1 wanted to see him in Mukkombu.Then, A-4 took him to Mukkombu.Hefound at Mukkombu that A-1 to A-3 and A-5 and A-6 were present.At Madurai, P.W.36 had seenA-1 and A-2 and two others.Here, P.W.36 was informed that theplan had been finalised and the duties had been assigned to each conspirator andP.W.36 was asked if he could assist them.Then, we come to the evidence afterthe occurrence. "..From the newspaper dated 03.02.1999, I learnt that Dr.Now, let us analyse whether the Prosecution has proved theparticipation of A-1 to A-7 in the killing of Dr.Sridhar on 02.02.1999 at 10.00p.m.P.W.1 is the only witness to speak about the same.According to her, on thefateful day, at about 10.30 p.m., she was reading.She heard her father's voiceshouting for help.Her father had not come home from clinic by the time.Sheopened the door and went outside.She saw six or seven persons stabbing herfather with knife like weapons.The assailants went away.This is her narration of the occurrence.The main attack on the evidence of P.W.1, is that P.W.1 wouldnot have been present at the time of occurrence considering the distance betweenthe house and the place of occurrence.Thedistance between the house of the deceased and the place of occurrence is hardly200 feet on the North Eastern direction.The contention of the learned counselfor the accused is that according to the evidence of P.W.65, he went to theplace of occurrence on hearing the distress call of the deceased and he foundsome people cutting the deceased and then, P.W.1 came to the place ofoccurrence.According to the learned Senior Counsel, from the evidence of P.W.65it has to be necessarily held that P.W.1 could have come to the place ofoccurrence only after the entire occurrence was over and thus, there would nothave been any occasion for P.W.1 to have seen the assailants.But, we are notpersuaded by the said argument for the simple reason that a close reading of theevidence of P.W.65 would go to show that on hearing the noise, he came out ofhis house and rushed to the place of occurrence.It cannot be so interpretedthat he has meant that P.W.1 was not at all there to see the occurrence and shecame only after the occurrence was over.To the contrary, P.W.1 had stated thaton hearing the cry of her father, she rushed to the place of occurrence, butsince there were number of assailants, all armed with deadly weapons andbrutally attacking his father, she had stopped at a distance of 100 feet fearingfor life. .Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, after the assailants hadleft, she came near the dead body of her father.So the evidence of P.W. 65 sawher at this stage.It does not mean that she came out of the house after theoccurrence.A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and that of the evidenceof P.W.65 would clearly dispel the argument of the learned Senior Counsel thatP.W.65 meant that P.W.1 was not an eye witness to the occurrence.The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel for theappellants would be that the scream of the deceased would not have been heard byP.W.1 as it was claimed by her since the room where she was sitting and studyingwas an Air Conditioned room and further that the compound gate of the house usedto be kept closed.According to the learned Senior Counsel, even assuming thatP.W.1 heard the cry of her father, it would have taken a considerable time forher to come and open the gate of the compound wall and then rush to the place ofoccurrence.The said argument is liable to be rejected if we consider theevidence of P.W.1 wherein she has stated that though normally the compound gatewould be kept closed during night hours, the same would be kept open until herfather returns from the clinic.Regarding the Air Conditioned Room, she has veryclearly stated that she could hear the cry of her father from the room.Thus,the second objection of the learned Senior Counsel in respect of the evidence ofP.W.1 is also liable to be rejected.The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel for theappellants is that P.W.1 would not have seen the assailants for want of light.The lights were burning.According to him, the Identification Paradeheld in respect of Accused 1 to 7 was belatedly done and in the absence of anyexplanation for such delay, no credibility could be given to the identificationmade by P.W.1 in the Test Identification Parade.We have considered the said contentions with much care.Of course,P.W.40 has stated that many of the injuries found on the deceased were all cutinjuries and they could have been caused by cutting instruments like Aruval.Therefore, theattempt of the learned Senior Counsel to use the complaint to contradict theevidence of P.W.1 deserves to be rejected as the same is impermissible underlaw.Admittedly, P.W.65, immediately after the occurrence, informedthe police over phone that there was a body lying near his house with injuries.At that time, they told him that A-1 was angrywith him since he refused to participate in the elimination of Dr.Thenext day, when he met A-1 at the house of one Sadak, A-1 wanted to know why herefused to participate in the elimination.Then, A-1 confessed to him the mannerin which A-1 to A-6 murdered the deceased.He also told him that A-3 sustainedinjury on the middle finger of the left hand.Then, A-1 warned him not todisclose the same to anybody and that is why P.W.36 had gone to Coimbatorewithout disclosing the occurrence to anybody.This part of the evidence ofP.W.36 deserves acceptance.The statement made by A-1 to P.W.36 is relevant asextra judicial confession.It can be used not only against A-1, but also againstthe rest of the accused under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. This pieceof evidence of P.W.36 also further strengthens the case of the prosecution asspoken to by P.W.1 The recovery of the weapons also gives some support to thecase of the prosecution.As we have narrated above, we have carefully analysed theentire materials available on record and we have given due consideration to thecontentions of the learned counsel appearing for the accused.We are fullyconvinced that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that theAccused 1 to 6 have conspired to kill the deceased and so they are liable to beconvicted under Sections 120-B read with 302 I.P.C. In the occurrence on thenight on 02.02.1999 at 10.00 p.m., in killing the deceased Dr.Sridhar A-1 to A-7had formed an unlawful assembly, in which A-1 to A-6 had deadly weapons.Therefore, A-1 to A-6 are liable to be convicted under Section 148 I.P.C and A-7is liable to be convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. Further, A-1 to A-6 havecaused the fatal injuries on the deceased and therefore, they are liable to bepunished under Section 302 I.P.C. Since A-7 also participated in the crime, heis liable to be punished under Section 109 read with 302 I.P.C. The Trial Courthas rightly convicted the appellants under the above sections and imposedappropriate punishment.We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.For the above said reasons, the conviction and sentence imposedon the appellants / accused by the Judgment dated 07.10.2003 of the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.I), Trichirappalli inS.C.NO.140 of 2000 are confirmed and both the criminal appeals are dismissed.Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.	['Section 147 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 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,095,894	son Mr.It is stated that the respondent along with her husband was living together at Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Chennai.The petitioners' son owned a manufacturing unit of Electrical and Mechanical Company and was having office at Thirumudivakkam.The petitioners would further state that their son had frequent travelling for the business purpose.Taking advantage of the same, the respondent developed extra marital relationship with one Prabakaran, a call taxi driver.It is alleged that on 05.06.2017, the petitioners' son was 1 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in murdered in his house and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.1942 of 2017 by the Guindy Police under Section 302 of IPC.It is further alleged that from the initial days of marriage, the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioners' son even for trivial issues.Though the minor children of the petitioners were aware of the adulterous activities of the respondent with the said Prabakaran, they did not reveal due to the constant threat exerted by the respondent.The Police, during the investigation, arrested the respondent and her accomplice Prabakran and they were remanded to Puzhal Jail.Henceforth, the minor children are under the care and custody of the petitioners.The first child Anusha is studying in a reputed residential school at Yercaud, while the other two children are residing with the petitioners and they are pursuing their studies at Chettinad Vidyashram School, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.2 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in3 / 11http://www.judis.nic.inIt is further stated that her husband was having an adulterous life with one Ms.Jothi and after considering the plight of the respondent, the first petitioner suggested the respondent to attend meditation classes, so as to recuperate herself to lead a normal life.The respondent would further state that her husband was having acquittance with Mr.Prabakran, who is a cab driver, who used to come for operating car or as a hire driver on many occasions.The said Prabakaran is also having nexus with one Vasanth, who is the nephew of the second petitioner.According to the respondent, her husband was murdered by the said Prabakran at the instigation of the said Vasanth, however, at the influence of the first petitioner, the respondent was implicated in the criminal case as co-accused and she was arrested by the Police and this was done to disqualify the respondent from claiming guardianship of her daughters.The respondent further stated that she being the mother of the minor children in the absence of their father, is a natural guardian and on the other hand, the petitioners are not fit to take care of the children and they have put the children into a hostel, which itself shows that the petitioners are not extended conducive atmosphere to the minor children, when especially they are girl children.It is further stated that due to gruesome murder of the minors father with the involvement of their mother, the children have not recovered from the shock and trauma and are affected psychologically as they were aware of the adulterous acts of the respondent from the beginning.The minor children are presently under the safe custody of the petitioners and they have sufficient means and wherewithal to take care of the necessities of the children and to impart them of best education and other needs.The respondent stands disqualified by virtue of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act and in the best interest and welfare of the minors, it is not suitable for the respondent to have custody or visitation right of the minor children and hence, the petitioners have to be appointed as lawful guardian of the persons and property of the minor children.In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the marriage of the respondent with the petitioners' son on 30.06.2004 and the three children born to them in the year 2005, 2008 & 2011 are not disputed.It is the case of the respondent that after birth of third child, her husband had became enimical towards her and started to ill-treat the respondent.The respondent underwent untold misery and she was treated as a servant in the house.It is further stated that the prime 4 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in accused Prabakaran after coming out of bail was murdered and there is no possibility that the respondent marrying the said Prabakaran and eliminate the minor children.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-"(i) Whether the petitioners are competent to be appointed as guardians of the person and property of the minors U.Anusha, U.B.Riya and U.Haasini?(ii) Whether the respondent is disqualified from being the guardian of the minor children?(iii) Whether the welfare of the minor children will be served by appointing the petitioners as their guardians?(iv) To what relief the parties are entitled?"To fortify the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1 and filed proof affidavit, reiterating the averments contained in the petition and marked Exs.5 / 11http://www.judis.nic.inThe counsel for the respondent cross-examined P.W.1 till 04.07.2019 and when the case was posted on 26.08.2019, it was represented by the learned counsel that the respondent was convicted and further cross examination of P.W.1 was closed.On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.In the matter on hand, it is not disputed that the respondent was married to the son of the petitioners on 30.06.2004 and three minor children viz., V.Anusha, UB.Riya and U.Haasini were born to them on 09.05.2005, 01.10.2008 & 12.04.2011 respectively.It is further seen that Anusha and Riya gave evidence as P.W.4 and P.W.5 and they have cogently narrated the incident connecting the accused 1 and 2 and on the basis of their evidence, the respondent was convicted.It is pertinent to note that on the date of filing of this petition, it was the stage of registration of a criminal case of murder and at the end of the trial in this case, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-Normally, grandparents can spare more time with their grand children and especially company of well educated grandparents would not only help the children in their studies but would also help them to imbibe cultural and moral values and good manners."9 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in18.11.2019 rns 10 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in K.KALYANASUNDARAM., J rns O.P No.752 of 2017 18.11.2019 11 / 11http://www.judis.nic.in	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,680,968	Madhusudhan Deb Chand Sethia.That you on or about dated 15-12-1959 contravened the condition of the Customs Clearance Permit and the Bond and purchased or otherwise acquired from Sri Nicholas Nesekar the said Daimler Benz Mercedes Car bearing Registration No. WBE 5973 and the terms and conditions of the said Customs Clearance Permit as well as of the Bond were known to you from before and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and within my cognizance.Bharat Shivji Sethia.JUDGMENT Sankar Battacharyya , J.This revisional application raises an important question of law.Bharat Shivji Sethia and Madhusudhan Deb Chand Sethia, the two petitioners before us, were tried before a learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the following charges:That you on or about dated 15-12-1959 contravened the condition of the Customs Clearance Permit and the Bond and purchased or otherwise acquired from Sri Nicholas Nesekar the said Daimler Benz Mercedes Car bearing Registration No. WBE 5973 and the terms and conditions of the said Customs Clearance Permit as well as of the Bond were known to you from before and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and within my congnizance.Madhusudhan Deb Chand Sethia and Bharat Shivji Sethia That you on or about December, 1959 and onward at Calcutta agreed with Nicholas Nesekar and others to do an illegal act, to wit, to contravene the conditions of Customs Clearance Permit No. 0988383/57/CCP/HQ/MQQ dated 2-1-1959 executed by Nicholas Nesekar and to purchase the Daimler Benz Mercedes Motor Car, bearing Registration No. WBE 5973 and imported by Nicholas Nesekar, by illegal means, viz., by advancing Rs. 33,000 as the consideration of the said car and made correspondence in the name of Nicholas Nesekar, even after his departure on 20-12-1959 from India for redemption by the said bond, executed by Sri Nesekar and ossessed the car in violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, which were known to you and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120B, IPC, read with Sections 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and within my cognizance.On conclusion of the trial they were convicted of both the charges.For their conviction under Sections 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 ("Act" for short), each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months more, while for their conviction under Sections 120B, Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 5 of the Act, each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months more, the sentences running concurrently.The learned Magistrate also passed an order for confiscation of the car to the Government.Against the above order to conviction and sentence the petitioners took an appeal to the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, but the appeal was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge and the order of conviction and sentence was upheld.Bird & Co., Calcutta, came to India in 1958 on business tour on the strength of a Dutch passport.While in India, he made an application to the customs authorities for permission to import his Daimler Benz car to this country.On the basis of the appliction customs clearance permit ("C.C.P." for short) No. 0968383/57/CCP/HQ/MQQ dated 2-1-1959 was granted on condition that he would export the car back to his country if his stay in India was for a period of less than three years.The defence of the petitioners was that they were not partners of M/s. Ikhra Nandy Coal Company at the material time, as the partnership was dissolved as far back as on 31-12-1957 after which, they had no concern with the said firm.Another defence was that the car was not sold but merely pledged as security for an advance of Rs. 33,000 taken by Nicholas from the said firm as loan.According to the petitioners, they were falsely implicated in the case merely for the purpose of harassing them.As stated already, both the Courts below negatived the defence case and concurrently held that the petitioners were guilty of the charges framed against them.,	['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,102,757	K.C.Karl Marx, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's minor daughter aged about 16 years was subjected to gang rape and murder in a cruel and barbaric manner and her daughter was missing on 29.12.2016 and lodged a complaint.Unfortunately her complaint was not registered immediately and no investigation at all.If the investigation had been carried out within the time definitely the life of the daughter would have been saved.In fact, after the death of her daughter, the police personnel are defending the accused and reprimanded the petitioner for not bringing up the child properly.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that in fact, the petitioner lodged a complaint and specifically alleged that her daughter had been kidnapped by one, Thamizharasan.Again on several occasions, the petitioner along with her elder daughter visited the fifth respondent police station, but to no avail.They also furnished information about her daughter's kidnap by the accused persons and requested to secure her daughter from illegal custody or otherwise her lifehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 would be in danger.Only on 05.01.2017, the fifth respondent registered FIR in Crime No.3 of 2017 that too, for girl missing.Again on 08.01.2017, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the fourth respondent to secure her daughter from the illegal custody of one, Manikandan but to no avail.Again, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the fourth respondent to secure her daughter.Even then, no action has been taken against the said Manikandan and others.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that to the petitioner's shock and surprise on 14.01.2017, a Police Constable called him over phone and informed that her daughter's body was found in a well.Thereafter, the body of her daughter was taken to Ariyalur Government Hospital and postmorten was carried out.In fact, no signature was obtained from the petitioner or her relatives.Her daughter was seen by some persons on 30.12.2016 and as such she had been under custody of the accused persons for 5 to 6 days and only thereafter she was killed.Since the first accused Manikandan is the Taluk Secretary of Hindu Munnani, he has been protected by police officials.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Police did not include the offence under Section 376(d) I.P.C. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 have failed in their duties.Only because of their inaction, her minor daughter was murdered and death occurred only due to sheer negligence of the respondents 3 to 5 herein.Therefore he prayed to change the investigation and also sought for action as against respondents 3 to 5 herein.Per contra, M/s.On enquiry no person in the name of Thamizharasan in Vellur Village as mentioned in the complaint lodged by the petitioner.Thereafter on 05.01.2017, the case has been registered in Crime No.3 of 2017 as girl missing and enquired several persons including the elder daughter of the petitioner and her friends and found that the deceased had love affair with one, Manikandan.Thereafter the police officials enquired him and directed him to appear on the next day.Thereafter he was absconding as such thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 fifth respondent concluded that the said Manikandan had love affair with the deceased as such she would have eloped with him.On enquiry, he confessed that the victim girl was raped and murdered on 29.12.2016 night itself.The said contention also corroborated with the post mortem certificate which states as “patchy area of peeling of cuticles was found all over the body with adipocere formation on front and brownish discolouration at back” and “fully grown maggots of white colour was found rushing out from skin defect at the posterior aspect of neck”.Therefore, the death was happened two weeks before and no chance for illegal custody of the deceased with the accused.Thereafter, the said Manikandan was discharged from the hospital and surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer and confessed that he along with his cousin, Manivannan kidnapped, raped and murdered her and the body of the deceased was disposed by dropping it into the Well by tied with big stone.Thereafter, the FIR was altered into under Sections 120(b), 364, 302, 201http://www.judis.nic.in 7 I.P.C. read with 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and 3(1) (w) (i), 3(2)(va) SC ST Act. On 17.01.2017 the dead body was taken away from the well and it was received by the elder daughter of the petitioner and buried.Further in counter, it is averred that the penal section for the aggravated sexual assault under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 already included and when laying the charge sheet offences under Section 376 (d) I.P.C. also would be added.She also submitted that on 18.01.2017, the District Collector, Ariyalur District issued cheque for a sum of Rs.4,12,500/- as victim compensation to the petitioner.She further submits that the charge sheet is now ready to file before the Magistrate concerned.Therefore, there is absolutely no political influence or undue favour as alleged by the petitioner in the investigation.The petitioner is the mother of the deceased victim.She lodged a complaint on 30.12.2016 alleging that her daughter Nandhini was kidnapped by one, Tamizharasan and further alleged that his relative namely Vennila received phone call from the cell phone No.8939439565 and informed that his daughter is with one, Thamizharasan.It is also seen that on enquiry the fourth respondent found thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the deceased daughter had love affair with one Manikandan.Immediately the said Manikandan was brought to the police station but they could not obtain any information about the deceased till evening.But he was absconded and thereafter found that he was admitted into the private hospital for consuming pesticide.This writ petition has been filed for a direction to transfer the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2017 pending on the file of the fourth respondent to the file of the sixth respondent and the enquiry to be conducted by a woman officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.Further prayed to initiate enquiry against the respondents 3 to 5 for the delayhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 in registering the FIR.Narmada Sampath, Additional Advocate General assisted by M/s.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed counter and submitted that CSR.No.559 of 2016 has been issued on the written complaint submitted by the petitioner.In fact, the accused, Manikandan, Manivannan, Vetriselvan and Thirumurugan were also detained under Goondas Act on 05.02.2017 itself.After receipt of all the reports, the fourth respondent filed final report for the offences under Sections 120(b), 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and 3(1) (w) (i), 3(2)(va) SC ST Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate has returned the same stating that this Court has already stayed the said proceedings.Inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 fact, the petitioner's family is protected by continuous police protection.At this stage, the investigation cannot be transferred and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.Immediately on receipt of the same, CSR number was issued in CSR.No.559 of 2016 and enquired about the cell phone and about the said Tamizharasan.The fourth respondent found that no such person is living in the Vellur village.Thereafter on 05.01.2017, the crime has been registered in Crime No.3 of 2017 on the file of the fifth respondent as girl missing.The crime was also registered against him in Crime No.3 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 309 I.P.C. by the Inspector of Police, Koovagam Police Station.After his discharge from the hospital, he himself surrendered before the Village Admistration Officer, Keelamaligai Village and confessed that he along with his cousin raped the deceased and murdered her.Thereafter the body of the deceased was disposed by dropping into the well by tying with big stone.On 17.01.2017, the body was taken from the well and all the organs were sent for chemical examination and conducted post mortem and after post mortem, the Viscera, Virginal Swab, Uterus and femur bone were sent for chemical examination.After receipt of the reports, they completed enquiry and filed final report under Sections 120(b), 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and 3(1) (w) (i), 3(2)(va) SC ST Act.In the counter the fourth respondent averred that the offence under Sections 376 (d) I.P.C. will be added while laying charge sheet.On the confession of the first accused, there is a gang rape and also statements recorded from the witnesses revealed that the offence under Section 376(d) is clearly made out as against the accused persons.Even then, the fourth respondent failed to add the offence in the final report.Though, specifically averred in the complaint that one, Thamizharasan kidnapped the deceased, no case was registered as against him since the fifth respondent conducted search in the entire village and found that no such person was there in the village.After enquiry with the elder daughter of the petitioner found that the deceased had love affair with one, Manikandan and eloped with him.Normally the girl aged about 16 or 17 years are missing and the police would thought she might have eloped on love affair.Further even in the complaint the petitioner statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 that one, Thamizharasan kidnapped the deceased daughter.Therefore, the fifth respondent would have come to the conclusion that the deceased would have eloped with that Thamizharasan.The fifth respondent also made search in all over the village and only on the enquiry with the elder daughter of the petitioner, found that the deceased eloped with one, Manikandan.Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a delay on the part of the fifth respondent to register the case.It is also revealed from the confession statement of the first accused that on 29.12.2016 itself, the deceased daughter was raped by him and his cousin and murdered.Therefore, it is not at all possible for the fifth respondent to save the life of the deceased daughter of the petitioner.When the elder daughter of the petitioner herself knows the fact that the deceased daughter already had love affair with the first accused namely Manikandan, she would have very well informed to the Police or to her own mother / petitioner herein.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the fifth respondent did not commit any wrong on the enquiry.It is true that the petitioner lost her daughter and she was raped by gang and brutally murdered.The accused persons have to be tried and punished in accordance with law.Now,http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the offence has been altered into Sections 120(b), 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. read with 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and 3(1) (w) (i), 3(2)(va) SC ST Act and final report is also ready to be filed.At this stage, the transfer of investigation would not serve any purpose since the fourth respondent already completed investigation and filed final report.Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the transfer of investigation in Crime No.3 of 2017 on the file of the fourth respondent to the sixth respondent cannot be ordered when there is no fault or wrong committed by the respondents 3 to 5 for delayed FIR, no direction can be given for enquiry against respondents 3 to 5 herein.But the fourth respondent averred in the counter that while laying charge sheet offence under Section 376 (d) I.P.C. also will be added.Therefore, the fourth respondent is directed to file final report including the offence under Section 376 (d) I.P.C. as against the accused persons to the final report within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 order.On receipt of the same, the learned Magistrate concerned is directed to commit the same within a period of two weeks thereafter to the trial court.Thereafter, the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs.01.04.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.2.The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, No.601, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai3.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Tamilnadu4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jeyamkondam Sub – division, Ariyalur District, Tamilnadu5.The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai W.P.No.6704 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.7246 & 7247 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8096 of 2017 01.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in	['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,681,044	The329rest of the accused then beated the deceased with sticksindiscriminately.The deceased cried "Bobu".CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 12of 1978 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1976 of theAndhra Pradesh High Court in Referred Trial No. 2 of 1976.K. Ram Kumar for the Appellant.G. Narasimhulu and S.K. Mehta for the Respondents.The prosecution case in short is that on 23rd July, 1974at 7.30 a.m. the accused persons forming themselves into anunlawful assembly in the house of the 1st accused and armingthemselves with spears, sticks and crow-bars attacked thedeceased while he was returning from the canal carryingwater in what is locally known as "Kavadi".When the de-ceased reached the house of the 1st accused, all the tenaccused came from behind and the 2nd accused gave a blowwith a stick on the back of the head of the deceased as aconsequence of which he fell down on his back.Then the 1staccused speared the deceased on his face and legs, the 5thaccused poked the deceased on his right wrist with a crow-bar and the 6th accused speared the deceased on his legs andhands.This was heardby his wife (P.W.5) from her house which is situated about150 yards.She immediately ran to the scene of occurence andsaw accused 1 to 8 and two others entering into the house ofthe 1st accused.P.W. 2 and others took the deceased toBhimadole Police Station in a cart which is about 4 kms.away from their house and lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P-1 whereinall the names of accused Nos. A1 to A4 and A6 to A8 as wellas the nature of injuries inflicted on the person of thedeceased were mentioned.This FIR was registered at 9.30a.m.and a case u/s 326 I.P.C. was registered.Subsequently,the deceased was found dead on examination by the Doctor,P.W. 12 at the Government Hospital, Elurn.All the 10 accused were charged u/s147 I.P.C. The accused Al, A4, A5 and A6 who were armed withdeadly weapons were also charged u/s 148 I.P.C. and accusedA1 to A10 were charged u/s 302 read with section 149 I.P.C.They were all committed to the Court of Sessions.The Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidenceand also heating the counsel for the prosecution as well asthe defence found that accused A 1 to A3 and A5 to A8 wereguilty of the offence u/s 147 I.P.C. and also u/s 302 readwith section 149 I.P.C. A1, A5 and A6 were also held guiltyu/s 148 I.P.C. The accused A4, A9 and A10 were howeveracquitted of the offence u/s 147 I.P.C. Accused A4 was alsonot found guilty of offence u/s 148 I.P.C. The accused A 1,A5 and A6 who were convicted u/s 302 read with section 149I.P.C. were sentenced to death and they were directed to hehanged by their necks till their death subject to confirma-tion by the High Court.A3, A7 and A8 were convicted u/s 302read with section 149 I.P.C. and they were sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life.A2, was also convicted u/s302 read with section 149 I.P.C. and he was sentenced todeath and directed to be hanged by his neck tilldeath.subject to confirmation by the High Court.The accusedA1 to A3 and A5 to A8 who were convicted u/s 147 I.P.C. weresentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.A1,A5 and A6 were convicted u/s 148 I.P.C. and they were sen-tenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.All the abovesentences were to run concurrently.Against this judgment and order 3 criminal-appeals beingCriminal Appeal Nos. 159/1976, 168/1976 and 169/1976 werefiled.These criminal appeals along with R.T. No. 2 of 1976were heard by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabadand the learned Judge by his order dated 5th May, 1976acquitted all the accused of both the charges of rioting andmurder levelled330against them and set aside the convictions and sentencesallowing all the appeals and rejecting the reference.Therecords be sent to the High Court forthwith.The High Courtwill be free to consider whether the accused will be en-larged on bail.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
601,465	Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:The application for cancellation of bail had matrix in FIR being CR No. I-5 of 2005 filed by one Abdul Rehman, a Police Officer, subordinate to the appellant and now an accused, who was a member of the Special Investigating Party formed at Udaipur, Rajasthan to investigate into various offences registered against one Sohrabuddin.As per the above FIR, said Sohrabuddin, son of Ahwaruddin Shaikh, resident of Zaraniya, Nagda, Madhya Pradesh, who was accused of offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 307, 186, 224 of IPC, under Sections 25(1)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 13 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. In the above FIR it was stated that the above accused (Sohrabuddin) was acting at the behest of ISI to spread terror and to disturb the unity and integrity of the country and also entered into conspiracy by possessing arms and ammunition so as to kill one of the big leaders of the State of Gujarat and when asked to surrender by the police party, fired from his revolver and attempted to kill them.Pursuant to the directions issued from time to time, the Investigation Agency of the State of Gujarat carried out investigation and it was found by the Investigating Agency that death of Sohrabuddin and subsequently reported death of Kausarbi, wife of Sohrabuddin, was a result of fake encounters carried out by the then officers of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (for short `ATS'), State of Gujarat and senior IPS officers of State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan are involved in the fake encounters.Second facet is the day on which alleged encounter of Sohrabuddin took place on 26.11.2005 and the third facet, i.e. post 26 11.2005 about death of Kausarbi and destroying evidence relating to her death.As per the letter dated 7.5.2005 of Investigating Officer said Shri Nathubha Jadeja is shown as accused, but later on Smt. Gita Johri, a senior police officer declared in her affidavit before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that Shri Nathubha Jadeja is a witness and on 25.5.2007 Shri Jadeja had stated in his affidavit before the learned CJM that his statement dated 26.4.2007 was recorded under duress.He stated that he was not present at the time of alleged encounter and he had no personal knowledge.J U D G M E N TDr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, JREPORTABLECRIMINAL APPEAL NO 739 OF 2008(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 867 of 2008)1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellant in terms of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').The case numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12644/2007 was taken up alongwith Criminal Miscellaneous application No.12646/2007 filed in respect of a co-accused Narendra K Amin (the appellant in Criminal Appeal relating to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.788/2008).The application under Section 439(2) was filed by the State of Gujarat through Investigating Officer, C.I.D. (Crime), Gandhinagar for cancellation of bail granted to the appellant by order dated 5.10.2007 by learned Additional City and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3459/2007 qua FIR being CR No. I-5/2005 registered with ATS Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120B, 420, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and under Sections 25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1950 (in short the 'Arms Act').All those officers were arrested and appellant who is accused No.3 is one of such senior IPS officer belonging to the State of Rajasthan.During the course of investigation, preliminary inquiry being Inquiry No.66 of 2006 was instituted by CID (Crime), Gujarat State, role of the appellant surfaced in the statement of one Ajay Parmar, Police Constable of ATS, Gujarat State.Accordingly, the Metropolitan Magistrate was informed and the appellant therein was arraigned as accused.The appellant preferred a regular bail application being Criminal Misc.Application No.3459 of 2007 on 17.9.2007, which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.2007 by learned Additional City and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad.The first facet was about conspiracy part and bringing Sohrabuddin from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad.Accordingly, the bail granted was cancelled.While cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code.The accused was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam Singh and Jai Singh.The first named Abdul Rehman had lodged the FIR.The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.The appeal is dismissed.	['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,150,284	The applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.15/2020 registered at Police Station City Utila, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not committed any offence.Applicant was the complainant of this case.Police has wrongly implicated him by filing false F.I.R. against the present applicant.As there was an illicit relationship of the deceased with Sattar who is nephew of the applicant and one F.I.R. was registered as Crime No.15/2020 at Police Station Utila, District Gwalior wherein complainant was Ramnath Pathak.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance as well as copy of the order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.Certified copy as per rules.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,156,481	Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Vishal 2 W.P. No.24967/2018 Mishra has brought on record by way of document No. 8781/18 medical record dated 15/10/18 prepared by a team of three doctors Dr. Nitu Mishra Assistant Professor, Dept. Obstetrics & Gynecology, Gandhi Medical College & SZH Bhopal (M.P.), Dr. Piyamvada Kurveti Verna, Associate Professor, Dept. Forensic Med.Gandhi Medical College & SZH Bhopal (M.P.) and Dr.Shubha Srivastava Associate Professor, Dept. Obstetrics & Gynecology, Gandhi Medical College & SZH Bhopal (M.P.) after subjecting the petitioner No.1 to medical examination which reveals thus:-(i) live fetus of 27 weeks and 6 days (+/-02 weeks)2016 (14) SCC 382, Order dated 16/12/17 passed in W.P. No. 20961/17 (Sundarlal Vs.State of M.P. & ors.) and Order dated 29/6/18 passed in W.P. No. 13583/18 (Sarita Singh Vs.State of M.P. & ors.) by Co-ordinate Benches of this court at Principal Seat Jablapur, order dated 9/1/18 passed in W.P. (ST) No. 36727/17 by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court and order dated 21/9/17 of the Apex Court passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 871/2017 (Ms. Chanchala Kumari Vs.15/10/18 was about 27 weeks.	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
6,015,691	1 MCRC-48861-2018 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-48861-2018 (NEMICHAND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 1 Gwalior, Dated : 11-12-2018 Shri V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ajay Bhargava, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Durgekar SANJAY N. DURGEKAR 2018.12.12 14:23:01 +05'30'	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,156,958	1 0.2018 79 KB CRM No. 8094 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17th September, 2018 in connection with G.R. Case No. 1785 of 2018 arising out of New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 323 of 2018 dated 08.05.2018 under Sections 447/465/468/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Dhiren Mandal and another ... Petitioners Mr. Anirban Banerjee ... for the petitioners Mr. Avishek Sinha ...for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 1785 of 2018 arising out of New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 323 of 2018 dated 08.05.2018 under Sections 447/465/468/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and says that the petitioners run a racket of producing false documents and indulging in transactions on the basis thereof.Considering the charges and the seriousness of the allegations, it may be necessary for the petitioners to be interrogated.However, there may not be any need for the petitioners to be taken into custody at the moment as long as they are kept away from their perceived place of operation and a deposit is obtained.1 2 Subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with the trial court and such deposits being made within a fortnight from date, the petitioners will be entitled to anticipatory bail.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2	['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,163,130	The petitioners/accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 506 (ii) IPC r/w.Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu (Prevention) Women Harassment Act alleging that on 07.06.2003, at about 1.30 p.m., at Melapalaiyur Colony, due to previous enmity, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have gathered in front of the house of one Kolanchi and assaulted him with legs and also thrown blade on him.Thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to have knocked down the daughter of Kolanchi, viz., Sumathi/P.W.1 and they were alleged to have sit on her and assaulted her on the chest and caught hold of her neck.Thereafter, accused No.1 is alleged to have attacked Sumathi by using blade, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on the left cheek of the face and contusion on left cheek and contusion at the left leg.After trial, the first petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam, in C.C.No.331 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 354 IPC.The second petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 was confirmed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam, on 27.01.2010 in Crl.Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case.He would further add that the petitioners have already undergone sentence on two occasions, firstly, during the remand period for a period of 18 days and during the appeal period, they were arrested and were in jail for a period of 5 days and totally, they have been in jail for 23 days and now they repent for the offence and to have peaceful and cordial relationship, they prayed for showing leniency in reduction of sentence to the effect that the period already undergone may be held sufficient in this case.I heard Mr.V.Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, who on instructions would confirm that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 have undergone the sentence of imprisonment as stated supra.4. Heard both sides.By consent, the Criminal Revision Case is taken up for final disposal.	['Section 354 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.
60,167,214	2 CRA. No.1105/2001It is an admitted fact that there was an old enmity between the appellants and the family of deceased- Hariram.The prosecution short in short was that on 02.06.1997 in village-Ringnod which comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station-Sardarpur, District-Dhar (MP), the appellants armed with dangerous weapons attacked complainant-Mukesh and his father-Hariram dealt blows with falia and stones etc. On hearing cries, witnesses namely; Rafiq, Maulana and Gaurav came and intervene.Both Mukesh and Hariram were taken in a vehicle to Police Station-Sardarpur, from where they were then taken to BMC Hospital, Sardarpur, where Hariram was found to be brought dead and Mukesh was admitted in an injured state.The Station House Officer, Sardarpur, Mr. R.A. Verma (PW-16) initiated inquest, a punchnama of the dead body of Hariram was drawn, post-mortem was conducted by Medical Officer, Dr. M.L. Jain (PW-30).The Investigating Officer (IO) seized stones as per memoranda of appellants, Mahesh, Sanjay and Rajendra and weapon- falia was recovered as per the memorandum of Jagdish.The accused persons were arrested.3 CRA. No.1105/2001The appellants abjured their guilt and stated that Hariram and Mukesh had come armed with weapons to assault the appellants, however, they slipped off from the terrace and fell down and suffered injuries.The appellants- Sanjay, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai took the defence of Alibi.4 CRA.15) have supported the prosecution story, rest of them turned hostile.Seizure and memorandum witnesses are Hariom Bairagi (PW-1), Shankar Das (PW-2), Kamal (PW-7), Ramesh (PW-8), Ramsingh (PW-9) and Bharat Singh (PW-10).The Doctor who conducted the post- mortem is Dr. M.L. Jain (PW-13) and Investigating Officer R.A. Verma is (PW-16).The appellants have also examined three defence witnesses in support and these are OP Rathore (DW/1), Mangilal 9DW/2) and Hukmichand (DW/3).The witness R.A. Verma (PW-16) states that on 02.06.1997, he was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station, Sardarpur.On that day, Brajbala lodged a report, which is Exhibit-P/6, which carries his signatures from B to B part.As per this witness, along with Brajbala, two injured persons namely Hariram and Mukesh were also brought.Dr. M. L. Jain (PW-13) states that while he was posted as Medical Officer in Block Medical Centre, 5 CRA.No.1105/2001 Sardarpur, he cross-examined injured Mukesh and Hariram.As per the request of SHO, Sardarpur, this witness states that while Mukesh was injured, Hariram was already dead.There was lacerated wound on his left frontal region measuring 4cm x 1cm and another lacerated wound on parietal occipital region measuring 6cm x 2cm.There was swelling on his left frontal region also.5 CRA.She states that deceased- Hariram was her brother-in-law and at the time of incident she was also in the same house and had come for delivery of a child and was already delivered a child two months earlier.She states that on the day of incident, accused- Jagdish entered the house from behind the backdoor and as soon as Mukesh came out, he was injured with falia and father-Hariram came out for rescue, then all the accused persons caught hold of him and killed him with stones.(Delivered on 25th day of September 2019) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC') against the judgment dated 18.08.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur in ST No.306/97, whereby the appellant-Jagdish has been held guilty under Sections 302/34 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and the appellants namely; Sanjay, Mahesh, Rajendra, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and all the appellants have been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each respectively for committing offence under Section 302/34 IPC and appellant-Jagdish has additonally been sentenced to five years RI and fine of Rs.500/-.During pendency of this appeal, appellant-Jagdish having completed the term of his imprisonment has 2 CRA.No.1105/2001 withdrawn his application and the appellants Mahesh and Rajendra have expired.Now this appeal shall be heard in respect of appellants namely; Sanjay, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai.The statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded and after rest of the investigation, chargesheet was filed under 3 CRA.In the appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.PC, it has been stated that the witnesses who have been termed to be eye-witnesses of the incident were not infact present on the spot, conclusions drawn in respect of Sumitrabai and Jamnabai that they caught hold of the hands of deceased while others assaulted Hariram is not supported by any evidence.As per appellants, police has fabricated the evidence and has convicted them only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.That the evidence of defence witnesses were not considered by the Presiding Officer, that the weapon used was not sent to the FSL for forensic examination which is a major lacuna and on these grounds, acquittal has been sought.The main question before us for determination is whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal memo, appellants Sanjay, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai who have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC deserve to be acquitted ?The prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses in all, out of which eight witnesses are the eye- witnesses.The eye-witnesses are Mukesh (PW-3), Brijlal (PW-4), Abdul Ali (PW-5), Rafiq Khan (PW-6), Suresh Babu (PW-11), Abrar Khan Pathan (PW-12), Ayub Khan (PW-14) and Baby Bai (PW-15).Out of them, Mukesh (PW-3), Brijlal (PW-4) and Baby Bai (PW-The witness states that all the injuries were caused due to hard and blunt object and were antemortem in nature.On the same day i.e. 02.06.1997, the witness carried out post- mortem of Hariram.On internal examination, it was found that there was fracture on left fronto-occipital region, which is extended from the frontal to the occipital region, brain membrane was torned and brain was swollen.The witness states that he was also queried as to whether the injury to Hariram could have been caused by stones.The witness vide Exhibit-P/26 answered in affirmative.This witness has been asked a question in cross-examination as to whether injury to Hariram could have been caused by fall on a stone.The witness in para- 13 has answered this question in affirmative.It has been the defence of the appellants that it was the deceased Hariram who had come to attack the appellants, however, Hariram fell off the terrace and suffered head injury.This defence shall be considered 6 CRA.It has been found proved that death occurred due to the impact of hard and blunt object on the head of Hariram.6 CRA.Now those eye-witnesses who have supported the prosecution story shall be considered.To recall once again, charge against the appellants was that they either themselves committed the murder of Hariram and was acted in furtherance of common intention and all other co-accused persons in murdering Hariram.The trial Court has found offence under Section 302/34 of IPC proved against all the three accused persons.Mukesh (PW-3) states that on 02.06.1997 at about 7:00 am, he along with his sister-Brijbala were sitting in the interior room of his house, in the exterior room his father- Hariram and mother-Sitabai were sitting and at that point of time, the appellants Sanjay, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai came with stones in their hand, other co-accused Jagdish had sariya, Rajendra had dhariya and Mahesh was also having stones in their hands.These accused persons entered the house from the backdoor and bagged into the house of Mukesh and told him to withdraw the report lodged by him otherwise he would be killed.Mukesh states that he refused to withdraw the report and at that point of time, Jagdish took dhariya from his brother Rajendra and hit Mukesh on his head who received injury.Mukesh state that in order to save himself he rushed out of the house, his father ran after him to save him, but Sumitrabai and Jamnabai caught hold of his father and rest of the accused namely; Jagdish, Sanjay, Mahesh and Rajendra and 7 CRA.No.1105/2001 inflicted stone injuries on his father who however later on died.He states in para-8 that his father was hit inside the house only.In para-21, he states that when his father was coming to save him at that point of time, Sumitrabai and Jamnabai held his father with their hands.7 CRA. No.1105/2001When this witness states that as soon as he was hurt, he rushed outside of his house.If he had so rushed out of his house immediately where was the opportunity for him to look back as to who had held the hands of his father and who inflicted injuries upon him.She states that her brother was watching the whole incident, but he was bleeding profusely 8 CRA.No.1105/2001 and was not able to get up.She states that report was lodged in police-station-Sardarpur which is Exhibit-P/6 with 'a to a' signatures of witness on the report.In cross- examination at para-5, she again reiterates that both lady accused persons had caught hold both the hand of her father and then caused injuries with stones and accused- Jagdish had injured her father with 20-25 kilograms of stone.In her report which is Exhibit-P/6 and police statements which is Exhibit-D/2, there is no reference of accused-Jagdish picking up a very big and heavy stone and injuring her father.8 CRA. No.1105/2001Whereas Mukesh (PW-3) states that his father was held up inside the house and beaten up there only, Brijbala (PW-4) states in para-5 that both lady appellants caught hold of her father when her father was trying to pick up Mukesh.Thus, there is discrepancy on the statements as to where deceased-Hariram was caught hold of by both the lady appellants.Mukesh (PW-3) himself states that the distance from his house to the hospital is 150 steps away whereas Brijbala in para-10, terms the distance as 100 steps away.Even considering the distance of 100 steps between the house and hospital, there is a huge difference between the places where Hariram was caught hold by two lady appellants as per Mukesh (PW-3) and that by Brijbala (PW-4).9 CRA. No.1105/2001Babybai (PW-15) is another eye-witness who has supported the prosecution story.She states that both Hariram and Mukesh came out of their house from front door and while Mukesh was hit inside the house and Hariram was attacked on the road.In para-14, she states that on the date of incident, witnesses namely; Mukesh, Hariram and Sitabai were in the kitchen whereas Brijbala was sleeping in the front room and Mukesh was sitting near 'Chulha' when he was attacked.She denies that when Mukesh was injured, Hariram and Sitabai were in the front room.Thus, these statements are divergent from those of Mukesh (PW-3) and Brijbala (PW-4) as to the places where members of the house were stationed when the incident/attack occurred.While Mukesh (PW-3) states that Hariram was inflicted with injuries inside the house, Brijbala (PW-4) states that Hariram was inflicted injuries near the hospital where Mukesh was sitting after being injured and this witness-Babybai (PW-15) in para-17 states that Hariram was hurt just outside the house near 'Otala' (verandah).10 CRA.The defence of the appellants, however, is absolutely different and they state that Mukesh and Hriram were aggressors and both had climbed over the terrace of the hospital, armed with weapons where Jagdish used to sleep in summers and in the commotion that followed, both slipped off the terrace and Hariram died due to striking of stones against him.In order to substantiate this defence, the place where Hariram's body was found has been brought to Court's attention.Rafiq Khan (PW-6) who is a hostile witness has admitted in his examination-in-chief that on 02.06.1997 at about 6:30 am, on hearing lot of noise, the witness came out and saw that deceased- Hariram was lying unconscious in a lane which can be accessed only through the house of compounder-Kaurav.This witness in para-5 admits that the place where Hariram was found can be reached either from inside the house of compounder-Kaurav or if someone leaps from the terrace of the hospital.Thus, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants state that the evidence of this witness itself proves that Hariram fell off the terrace and landed on the lane because it is not the case of prosecution that Hariram had entered the house of compounder-Kaurav,when chased.The suggestion has been given to Mukesh (PW-3) that he, along with Hariram wanted to attack Jagdish and both had climbed up the terrace of the hospital and his father-Hariram dealt two-11 CRA. No.1105/2001three lathi blows on Jagdish and thereafter scuffle ensued.Jagdish and Hariram fell off the terrace.This suggestion has been denied by Mukesh (PW-3).Brijbala (PW-4) and Babybai (PW-15) have also denied the suggestion.This witness in para-13 admits that if someone falls headlong on stone then also such injuries could be caused.Thus, it appears that Hariram was found injured in a lane which could be accessed either from inside the house of compounder-Kaurav or by jumping from terrace of the hospital.The Doctor has also stated that the injuries could have been caused by fall.This give ample push to the defence of appellants that Hariram had died as a result of fall from terrace and the theory propounded by prosecution is that the appellants entered the house of Hariram and assaulted him which does not evoke confidence.It has already been seen that there is a variance between the statements of eye-witnesses regarding the place where deceased-Hariram was assaulted.It would be appropriate to consider the evidence of defence witness-Hukumchand (DW-3) in this respect.The defence witness-Hukumchand (DW-3) states that on the date of incident, he had gone to handpump near the 12 CRA.No.1105/2001 hospital for filling up the water and saw scuffle going on between Hariram and Jagdish and Hariram fell off the terrace in a lane which is closed from outside.He also states that this lane is closed with ten feet eye-wall and public cannot entered this lane and one can enter this lane either by jumping from the terrace of hospital or from inside the house of compounder-Kaurav.This witness has been cross-examined.He has not been given any such suggestion which may tend to discredit the evidence.12 CRA.There is further variance as to the role played by two lady appellants namely; Sumitrabai and Jamnabai.Brijbala (PW-4) states that both these ladies had caught hold of her father-Hariram and other co-accused persons inflicted stone injuries on Hariram.As against this, in report Exhibit- P/6 lodged by the same witness, it has been mentioned that these lady appellants also inflicted injuries with stones on deceased-Hariram.However, no stones were recovered from these lady appellants.One of these lady namely; Sumitrabai infact states in statements under Section 313 Cr.PC that she was not present at the place of incident.She has examined defence witness-Mr.O.P. Rathore (DW-1) who states that Sumitrabai stayed in Laxmi Lodge, a hotel on 01.06.1997, thus, justifying the defence of Sumitrabai that she had stayed in a hotel and was not present on the spot of incident.Sumitrabai in her accused statement states that one day prior to the incident, the appellants Hariram, Mukesh Brijbala had quarrelled in the evening whose report was lodged in the evening of 13 CRA.No.1105/2001 01.06.1996 at around 8-9 pm and it had became late, so she stayed in Laxmi lodge and was not present on the spot.13 CRA.Thus, a doubt gets created regarding presence of Sumitrabai on the spot.As far as Jamnabai, it has already been found that regarding her role there is discrepancy in the statement of Brijbala (PW-4) in the sense that Brijbala states that Jamnabai had barely held the hands of deceased-Hariram but in FIR she states that Jamnabai had also assaulted deceased-Hariram with stone.In view of such discrepent statement involvement of Jamnabai also becomes doubtful.Regarding the involvement of appellant-Sanjay, the prosecution story is that Sanjay inflicted blow on deceased-Hariram with a stone.The Investigating Officer-R.A. Verma (PW-16), of course, states that stone has been seized as per memorandum of appellant-Sanjay.However, the same witness states that similarly the other accused persons Rajendra and Mahesh also gave their memorandum on the basis of which stones were recovered.A perusal of Exhibit- P/11 shows that the stone was recovered from hear Ringnod hospital and further stones were also recovered 14 CRA.No.1105/2001 from other co-accused persons from the same place.It is very difficult to understand as to how each of the three acccused persons may have identified their stones which were used in inflicting injuries on deceased-Hariram.As per FSL report-Exhibit-P/36, the stone recovered at the instance of appellant-Sanjay was found to have traces of blood.As already seen, the possibility of blood may have come on the stone when Hariram fell off from the terrace on such stone.Moreover, Shankardas (PW-2) in cross- examination states that the place of seizure was an open place.14 CRA.In the end, it would be appropriate to point out that prosecution witness Mukesh (PW-3) has stated that the accused assaulted him when he refused to withdraw the report which was lodged against the accused.However, the prosecution has not exhibited the copy of report which Mukesh had lodged against Jagdish.On the contrary, it has been found proved that it was the accused-Sumitrabai who had lodged the report against the complainants just one day prior to the present incident which substantiates the defence of appellants that it was the complainants Mukesh and Hariram who enraged at the report lodged by Sumitrabai had sought to assault the accused by climbing up the terrace of hospital but they fell off from the terrace and in the process Hariram himself succumbed to his 15 CRA.No.1105/2001 injuries.15 CRA.Thus, due to the reasons described earlier, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted in furtherance of common intention of other accused persons in committing murder of Hariram.Consequently, this appeal succeed and appellants stand acquitted from the charge framed against them under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which has been found proved by the Trial Court.	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,167,501	The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.596 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The Trial Court framed as many as three charges, as detailed below.The facts of the case lie a narrow compass:- The appellant, a shepherd and native of S.S.Puram in Tirunelveli District, was tending cattle in Kerala.He came to his native village on 12.02.2015, for harvesting the crops in his lands and stayed in his natal home with his brother and sister.At the request of his brother- in-law - Krishnan, he took around 300 goats to the lands belonging to his family for grazing.The goats strayed into the fields of the deceased - Esakkimmal and devoured the crops.On coming to know of this, the deceased saw the appellant on 25.02.2015, near the village temple and berated him for allowing his cattle to destroy her crops and made snide remark about the character of his wife.It is alleged that on 26.02.2015, at 11.00 AM, when Esakkiammal was watering the crops in her lands, the appellant is said to have caused her death by belabouring her with a sickle.Thereafter, the appellant is said to have taken a chain belonging to her and had left the village on the same day for his work place inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Kerala.Since Esakkiammal did not return home, Devika [PW-1], the daughter of the deceased and the other relatives, namely, Arumugam [PW-2] and Ramiah [PW-3] started searching for her and ultimately, on the same day, around 10.00 PM, they went to the fields and found the body of Esakkiammal.On the complaint [EX-P1] given by Devika [PW-1], Rajaram [PW-17] registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2015, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, against unknown accused, at 11.00 PM, on 26.02.2015 and prepared the printed First Information Report, [EX-P18], which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 06.45 AM, on 27.02.2015, as could be seen from the endorsement made therein.The investigation of the case was taken over by Joseph Jatson [PW-18], [who, hereinafter, shall be referred to as "the I.O"].The I.O came to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses - Kumaresan [not examined] and Murugan [PW-4], prepapred the Observation Mahazer [EX-P2] and Rough Sketch [EX- P19].From the place of occurrence, he also seized bloodstained soil [MO-6] and soil without bloodstain [MO-7] under the cover of mahazar [EX-P3].Jeyaraj [PW-10], the police photographer, took photographs of the body, which were marked as MO-9 series.From the place ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 occurrence, he recovered a spade [MO-15] and a sickle [MO-5] under the cover of mahazer [EX-P3] in the presence of witnesses - Murugan [PW-4] and Kumaresan [not examined].Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.Rajesh, [PW-10], conducted autospy on the body of the deceased and in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate, has given his opinion as to the cause of death, which is as under:-"The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury to the neck".The police were clueless for some time and the break through came when the appellant surrendered before Jawan [PW-14], the Village Administrative Officer, Koodangulam, on 04.03.2015, around 05.00 PM and gave an extra judicial confession [EX-P4].After recording the confession, Jawan [PW-14] produced him before the I.O, who placed him under arrest and recovered 28 gram chain [MO-4] from his pocket under the cover of mahazer [EX-P6] in the presence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Jawan [PW-14] and Arul Lingam [not examined].Thereafter, based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, the I.O seized a sickle [MO-11], a Cycle [MO-12], a full hand shirt [MO-13] and a lungi [MO-14] under the cover of mahazer [EX-P8].************* P.N.PRAKASH, J.By Judgment dated 22.09.2016, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:-Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.447 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment No fine for one month.379 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment No fine for one month.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, the police went to Muthoot Fin Corporation, Nagercoil, on 05.03.2015 and examined the CCTV footages and recorded the statement of Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9], the jewel appraiser with regard to the chain, that was recovered from the appellant.The police collected the CCTV footages from Muthoot Fin Corporation for investigation purpose.Thereafter, the I.O altered the case into one under Sections 447, 341, 397 and 302 IPC and prepared the alteration report [EX-P21].After completing the investigation, the I.O filed final report in PRC.No.36 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.596 of 2015 and made over to the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for trial.The Trial Court framed charges against the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.1, supra.When questioned,http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the accused pleaded "not guilty".To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, marked 21 exhibits and 15 material objects.No witness was examined on the side of the accused nor any document marked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.The accused gave certain explanations, about which, we will discuss a little later.The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by Judgment dated 22.09.2016, convicted the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra.The appellant is, therefore, before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.The prosecution case rests on the extra judicial confession [EX-P4] that was given by the appellant to Jawan [PW-14] and the recovery of imitation chain [MO-4], worn by Esakkiammal.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the extra judicial confession [EX-P4] alleged to have been given by the appellant is a weak piece of evidence and much reliance cannot be placed on it."On 15.02.2015, I went to the house of my younger sister - Melangottai @ Esakkiammal, W/o.Krishnan @ Kittu, situated opposite my house and as my sister's husband - Krishnan @ Kittu went to remove the hair of goats in the house of one Kalai, who is the son of my maternal uncle at Sankaneri.I went to graze 300 goats of Krishnan on that day at the farm belonging to us situated at Sevalvilai near Koodankulam.At that time, I let thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 goats to graze in the northern side of the field, bean farm of Esakkiammal, W/o.Palvannan of S.S.Puram.was coming near Esakkiamman temple on the western side of our village, Esakkiammal saw and scolded me in filthy language; she said, "You are not answering for making your goats graz in my garden?'.I told her immediately that I will pay whatever the amount she wants, for which, she said, “Have you earned money by pimping your wife in Kerala to others?” and immediately, I thought of killing her.But as it was a road, I controlled myself.I went to garden in my sister's husband by Krishnan's bicycle and saw as to whether the above said Esakkiammal was coming to the farm.She did not come.I was there till 11.00 a.m., and after irrigating the farm, I came to myhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 house and took my lunch and took the cycle and went to the above said Sevalvilai farm.About 2.00 p.m., Esakkiammal was tending to the chilli plants in her farm.With the intention to kill her, I entered into her farm and went near her and on seeing the sickle in my hand, she tried to go to the jasmine farm of Ramiah.Immediately, I went near her quickly and told her to stop and then she turned back and saw me.Immediately I said, “you have talked about my wife in filthy language and hence you should not be alive, let you die and get lost with this” and I hacked her on her right neck with the sickle.She fell down.As she was groaning, I knew that she has not died and I thought that if she does not die, then, the matter will come out and hence, I hacked her again on the same place.She fell on the ground in a pool of blood.She was dead.I saw a gold chain around the neck.I took the chain.In the preamble portion of the statement, he has said that his was a love marriage and after marriage, he started living in Kerela to eke out hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 livelihood.From there, I took a bus at 3.45 PM., went to Aanjugram and Nagercoil and got down at Nagercoil Chettikulam Junction and went to Muthoot Fin corp Bank about 5.00 PM and gave the chain for pledging.I got it back and put it in my underwear pocket and went to Vadasery and from there, I went to Kollam in a bus and got down there and took an Auto and went to my house.Then, I felt guilty about the incident and was in mental agony.I feared that I may be caught by the police and so, I was in severe mental agony.Then, I left the place and out of fear that if it is known to police, they will beat me, I appear before you and tell you everything".Prince [PW-8], the Manager of Muthoot Fin Corporation, Nagercoil, has stated that on 26.02.2015, around 05.00 PM, a person came to the branch and wanted a jewel loan; he referred him to the appraiser - Mery Pravija [PW-9]; thereafter, she [PW-9] told him that the chain brought by that person was an imitation jewel; and so, she returned it.He also gave a copy of the CCTV footage in a CD form, which has been marked as MO-8, subject to objections raised by the defence with regard to Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, [for brevity, 'the Act'].His intention was only to teach a lesson to Esakkiammal for abusing him and for character assassinating his wife, when he had married against all odds.A little greed would have crept in his mind on seeing the ornaments worn by Esakkiammal and believing that the imitationhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 chain [MO-4] was of gold, he would have taken it alone.Otherwise, there is no reason for him to go to Muthoot Fin Corporation on the same evening, namely, on 26.02.2015, at 05.00 PM, to convert it into money.Unfortunately, the imitiation chain turned out to be his waterloo.For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.(vi).Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law".The appellant has not even suggested to Jawan [PW-14] and the I.O that the extra judicial confession was obtained under coercion.In other words, he has not even challenged the voluntariness of it.Coming to the truthfulness of it, the facts stated by him find corroboration from independent sources.For example, he has stated that after the incident, he borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from Velmurugan [PW-6] and went by Cycle with Kumar [PW-7], who dropped him in the bus stand to go to Kerala.Both Velmurugan [PW-6] and Kumar [PW-7] have given evidence on this aspect.It is common knowledge that Nagercoil is en route to Kerala from Koodangulam, where the appellant boarded the bus.He reached Nagercoil at 05.00 PM in the evening and went to Muthoot Fin Corporation to raise money by pledging the chain [MO-4].Therefore,http://www.judis.nic.in 18 we have no reason to reject the extra judicial confession [EX-P4] given by the appellant to Jawan [PW-14].Thus, the Judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court warrants no interference.In the result, the Judgment dated 22.09.2016 made in S.C.No.596 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 20 P.N.PRAKASH, J.	['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,008	JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellants Shamkant Vasant Naik and Smt. Krishna- bai Vasant Naik aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and their sentence of 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for a period of 3 months, have come up in appeal before this Court.Alongwith the appellant one Rajendra Narayan Lotikar to whom the other sister of appellant Shamkant Vasant Naik was married, was also tried but he was acquitted by the impugned order.The prosecution in brief is that the deceased Rohini was the sister of informant Dipak Vishwanath Wagale (PW 2).Appellant No. 2 Smt. Krishnabai Vasant Naik is said to be the mother of appellant No. 1 and the mother-in-law of the deceased.According to the prosecution the appellants used to beat Rohini, pull her hair and not provide her with meals.It is said that Rohini wrote two letters dated 18.6.1985 (Exhibit 12) and 29.3.1986 (Exhibit 13) to the informant, in which she complained of the ill-treatment which was administered to her.It is also alleged that some expenses were incurred by the appellant's in the illness of Rohini and they were demanding their repayment.On 7.10.1986 the informant came to know from one of the brothers of the appellant and one more person about the death of Rohini.On that information he left for Mhalunge where Rohini used to reside with the appellants.There he learnt that Rohini's corpse was in the well.Thereafter the informant proceeded to Police Station, Chakan and lodged FIR on the basis of which a case under Sections 498A, 306 read with 34, IPC was registered.In the aforesaid FIR the appellants are named.The post mortem examination of the dead body of Rohini was conducted on 7.10.1986 between 2 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. by Dr. Arund Digambar Burande (PW 7).On the corpse of the deceased the doctor found two lacerations and one contused lacerated wound.There was no damage to any internal organs.In the opinion of the Doctor the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to drowning.In the usual course the investigation was done and ultimately a charge- sheet against the appellants and Rajendra Narayan Lotikar, under Sections 498, 306, IPC read with 34, IPC was submitted.In the Trial Court charges under Sections 306, IPC and 498A, IPC read with 34, IPC were framed against the appellants as well as the acquitted accused Rajendra Narayan Lotikar.To those charges the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the Trial Court in all the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses.It also tendered and proved various exhibits.In defence no witness was examined.The trial Judge acquitted Rajendra Narayan Lotikar on all the charges and the appellants under Sections 306, IPC read with 34, IPC.He convicted and sentenced them under Section 498A, IPCI have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kadam holding brief for Mr. A.R. Rasal for the appellant and Mr. B.R. Patil for the State of Maharashtra, at considerable length.I have perused the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Trial Court as well as the various exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution during the trial.I have gone through the impugned judgment also.After giving anxious consideration to the matter, I am of the opinion that on merits this appeal deserves to be dismissed.I find in the instant case that there is cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence with respect to the cruelty administered by appellants to the deceased Rohini.. The documentary eivdence consists of two letters Exhibits 12 and 13 written by Rohini to her brother, informant Dipak Wagale (PW 2).These letters have been proved by Dipak Wagale in the Trial Court.I have perused the aforesaid letters.I find that in Exhibit 13 Rohini has categorically mentioned that the accused used to beat her every day, pull her hair and also threatened her.Apart from the documentary evidence there is also oral evidence in the form of statements of Dipak Vishwanath Wagale (PW 2), Jayshree Jayant Desh- pande (PW3) and Balasaheb Baburao Bendbhar (PW 4).All these witnesses have deposed about the cruelty which was administered by the appellant to the deceased.The informant Dipak Vishwanath Wagale (PW 2) stated that the appel- lants used to treat her as a maid-servant.I have no reason to disbelieve his testimony because had the aforesaid allegations been not true then being the real brother-in-law of the appellant No. 1 whose mother appellant No. 2 is, he would have been the last person to implicate the appellants.PW 3-Jayant Deshpande is the neighbour of the appellants.Her house is at a distance of about 15 ft.from the house of the appellants.She has deposed that the deceased told her that the appellants did not even provide her with meals and used to assault her.She also deposed that the deceased has shown nail scratches on her face and the injuries caused to her at the hands of her mother-in-law.She also stated that the appellant No. 1 used to beat her with a stick.She further stated that one day on hearing the cries of Rohini to the effect "save", "save", she went to Rohini's house and saw the appellants assaulting Rohini in a room which was latched from inside.She claims to have seen wheel marks on Rohini.Balasaheb (PW 4) has a shop in front of the house of the appellants.He deposed that from his shop he had seen the appellants beating Rohini on many occasions.Thus in my opinion there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence to connect the appellants with offence under Section 498A, IPC.The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that inasmuch as Jayshree Jayant (PW 3) and Balasaheb Baburao (PW 4) admitted being enimical to the appellants in their cross- examination in the Trial Court and as the informant Dipak Wagale (PW 2) is the brother of the deceased I should not accept their evidence.I regret that I cannot accede to this contention of the learned Counsel because the law is that the testimony of enimical and interested witnesses is not to be mechanically rejected but only to be assessed with caution.I have applied the necessary caution.I find their statements to be of a wholly reliable and trustworthy nature.In her statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. appellant No. 2 in the year 1987, has given out her age as 65 years.	['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
600,108	This material was to be of Iran origin and the quality was to be minimum 99.95% purity.According to the terms of contract, goods were to be delivered at the final destination at ICD, Pithampur.The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted as under:--"Please refer to the discussions we had today regarding delivery of consignment since the steamer agent has already filed the manifest at Nava Sheva.It will be a long and hard work to get the manifest changed.We suggest please take the delivery at Nava Sheva so that demurrage and detention of the containers could be avoided.Glencore International AG have advised that the actual demurrage and detention paid by Metalman for taking delivery at Nava Sheva will be reimbursed.We have already spoken to Steamer Agent, Mr. Khanolkar who will take up with shipping line at Singapore to extend the extra free time.The contents are no where disclosing the promise by the petitioners.Respondent No. 2 was also advised to reimburse demurrage detention charges.On their behalf or on behalf of respondent No. 2 to make reimbursement of demurrage and detention charges.The petitioners have only made suggestion to respondent No. 1 for taking delivery at Nava Sheva and also advised respondent No. 2 to reimburse demurrage and detention charges.ORDER S.L. Kochar, J.The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 1711/2002 and issuance of process to the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mr. D.N. Patil), Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.The factual matrix giving rise to the dispute between the parties are as follows :--Respondent No. 1 has filed criminal complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2, alleging that respondent No. 1/complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the respondent No. 2 is a Company situated in Switzerland and deals with the business of export of zinc and other products.However, when the goods, i.e., Zinc metal was reached India the same was not as per the terms of the contract and instead of being of Iran origin were of Chinese origin and the zinc metal instead of 99.95% purity was of 99.9%.The final destination was also changed and the goods were required to be accepted at Nava Sheva Port.Respondent No. 1 informed petitioner/Company about breach of contract on which the petitioners on behalf of respondent No. 2/Glencore International AG by Telefax, dated 18-4-2001 requested that as the manifest had already been filed as Nava Sheva it would be very difficult to change the same.Thus they requested the complainant to take the delivery at Nava Sheva itself so that demurrage and detention charges could be reduced.According to the complainant/respondent No. 1, petitioners and respondent No. 2 with malafide intention have not reimbursed the same amount and thereby cheated complainant/respondent No. 1 and caused wrongful loss to him by false assurance of reimbursement.Therefore, they have committed offence punishable under Sections 480, 420 and 120B, IPC.C. No. 4193/98, decided on 5-7-2002)Now, the crucial question before this Court to decide is that at the time of correspondence between respondent No. 1 and petitioners, petitioners were of guilty intention or having mens rea on their part to pursue the respondent No. 1 to take delivery of goods at Nava Sheva and whether they had deceived respondent No. 1 fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property or consent to retain any property.Respondent No. 2 had signed this contract at Switzerland whereas respondent No. 1 has signed the same at Indore.Now whether the petitioners have acted with guilty intention or mens rea knowing well at the time of conveying correspondence of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for lifting goods from Nava Sheva Port, Mumbai.Letter dated 18th April, 2001 sent by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 is very important and material on which both the parties have placed reliance.Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has also referred to letter dated 21 -5-2002 and the reply of the above mentioned FAX fetter dated 18-4-2001 and 21-4-2002 and submitted that the contents of this letter sent by respondent No, 1 to the petitioners is clearly disclosing the fact that respondent No. 1 agreed to lift the goods only on the basis of promise of payment of demurrage and detention charges by the petitioners.This is true that the contents of this letter are disclosing the fact that respondent No. 1 has addressed to petitioners that as per his request he agreed to lift the goods from Nava Sheva Port, Mumbai after paying demurrage.He also sought confirmation that the same will be reimbursed within 15 days.This Court has gone through the contents of this letter sent by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners.The contents of this letter nowhere disclosing the fact that the petitioners in any way induced respondent No. 1 to lift the goods by making a promise to reimburse demurrage and detention charges.The relevant contents of this letter dated 21-4-2001 sent by respondent No. 1 is extracted as under:--Contrary to the terms of our contract you have expressed your desire for us to accept the discrepant documents and to accept the deliveries at place other than contracted for.Subject to our accepting your request you have verbally conveyed your acceptance to reimburse us to the cost incurred by us towards demurrage, detention including container detention charges by Shipping Lines in addition to the Port detention charged for the period till the cargo is cleared from the Port.We as a gesture of goodwill agree for the same and request you to confirm the verbal communication in writing.Kindly also confirm that you shall reimburse these expenditures within a period of 15 days from your raising the claim on you.Please treat this matter as urgent so as to proceed immediately."Again the petitioners have sent FAX dated 21-4-2001 which is reproduced hereinbelow:--"Re. CTR No. 061.0110833-S Please refer to your message dated 21-4-2001, Glencore International AG, Baar have advised us to inform Metalman following :--Glencore International AGA Baar have already agreed to reimburse actual demurrage/detention charges vide Glencore's letter dated 18-4-2001 incurred by Metalman in respect of captioned two consignments.Glencore International also advised that they will reimburse claim of Metalman within 15-20 days from the date of receipt of claim.Glencore International Appreciate Metalman's gesture in accepting shipment at Nava Sheva instead of ICD, Pithampur.Glencore International AGE Baar have instructed us to issue this message to Metalman."The above mentioned contents of letter dated 21-4-2001 is reflecting the fact that respondent No. 1 accepted the request made by the petitioners.But in FAX letter dated 18-4-2001 nowhere mentioned the words "request" but the words "we suggest" are mentioned therein.In the letter dated 21-4-2001 on the same day by FAX, a message was conveyed to respondent No. 1 by the petitioners.	['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,015,069	The case of prosecution is that the appellant/A1, over a period of one year enticed PW-1 on false promise of marrying her and had intercourse with her.On 29.05.2006, accused and their family members arranged the marriage of appellant/A1 with one Karpagam, a resident of Karkudal village.He told her that only a betrothal ceremony was completed and that he will stop the arrangement and marry her.While so, on 08.06.2006, at 10'o clock, appellant/A1 took PW-1 to a sugarcane field, had sexual intercourse against her will.PW-1 went home and narrated the incident to PW-2, her mother.PW-2 and PW-3, brother of deceased, went to accused's house and asked A1 to marry PW-1, which was refused by him and A2, his mother, who threatened PWs.1 and 2 using abusive language.PW-11, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vriddhachalam examined PW-1, who sought a day's time.PW-11 registered a case in Crime No.6/2006 on the file of respondent for offences u/s.417, 376 and 506(ii) I.P.C and the same is marked as Ex.PW-11 sent the F.I.R, complaint and other documents to higher authorities.PW-12, Inspector of Police, received the case papers relating to Crime No.6/2006 and took up investigation.He had examined PW-1 and recorded her statement.He went to the place of occurrence at 05:30 p.m. and prepared Ex.Rough sketch is Ex.On receiving information that appellant/A1 was at Go-Mavidanthal Bus Stand, PW-12 went there and arrested him at 06.00 p.m., took him to the Police Station and then sent him to judicial custody.He examined witnesses PWs.6 & 7 and recorded their statements.On 12.06.2006, he examined witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and recorded their statements.He again examined PW-1 and recorded her further statement.He examined PW-8, Dr.Senkuttuvan and recorded his statement.On 17.06.2006, he examined PW-10, Dr.Senthilkumar and PW-9, Dr.Shanmugagani and recorded their statements.On 08.08.2006, he examined Dr.Natarajan, who issued certificates of age of appellant/A1 and PW-1.On 11.08.2006, he completed investigation and filed charge sheet against accused u/s.417, 376, 506(ii) IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vridhachalam.This appeal arises against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore passed in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on 30.04.2007, convicting appellant/A1 for offences u/s.376 and 417 I.P.C and sentencing him to 7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 21 months S.I for offence u/s.376 IPC and 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I for offence u/s.417 IPC.On committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore.Before trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked 11 exhibits.None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 30.04.2007, convicted appellant/A1 for offences u/s.376 and 417 IPC and sentencing him to 7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 21 months S.I for offence u/s.376 IPC and 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. for offence u/s.417 IPC.There against, the present appeal.5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.The appellant/accused stands convicted for offence u/s. 376 and 417 IPC while his mother, charged with offence u/s. 506(ii) IPC was acquitted by the Trial Court.D.W.1 and appellant/A1 admittedly were in a relationship for a period of one year.It is the defence case that owing to a quarrel which brokeout between one Manikandan and appellant/A1 wherein both indulged in fisticuffs that a false complaint had been preferred at the instance of Manikandan and one Subramanian who was an Advocate.Though P.W.12 would deny such position and that he had acted at the instance of such person and not taken any action on the complaint preferred by the accused, it is admitted by P.W.1 that the mother of the appellant/A1 indeed had preferred a complaint with the respondent on 11.06.2006 informing an assault by Manikandan.P.W.1 has admitted to her father being an employee of said Manikandan and that Subramanian the brother of Manikandan was an Advocate practising at Virudachalam.In the light of P.W.12 denying any knowledge of the complaint preferred by the mother of the appellant/A1 and the ambivalent nature of his evidence regards to the manner in which the 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and Observation Mahazar came to be preferred, the defence case of foisting of a false case cannot be ruled out.Benefit of doubt would flow to the accused.The Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed.The judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, passed in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on 30.04.2007, shall stand set aside.Appellant is acquitted of all charges.Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded.Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.11.07.2017Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes mrr/gmTo1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vriddhachalam.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T.SELVAM, J mrr/gm/kprCriminal Appeal No. 623 of 200711.07.2017	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,043,652	aav CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10450 and 10451 of 2019 28.11.2019This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, as against the petitioners.Due to previous enmity on 29.08.1994 at about 6.30 p.m., when Sivam and Pandi travelled in a town bus from Karaikudi to Devakottai ,the petitioners herein along with others entered into the bus abused the defacto complainant using his caste name and also assaulted the defacto complainant .Hence, the complaint.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent police completed the investigation and filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.202 of 2010 and thereafter, A1 to 6, A8 and A9 appeared before the trial Court and conducted the case, which was ended in acquittal .Initially, the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003 and thereafter, the 2/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 case was made over before the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in S.C.No.The trial Court acquitted the other accused on the ground that the prosecution did support the case.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and marked as Exs.P1 to 9 and the trial Court found that they have not spoken about the charges to prove the same and as such, other accused persons have been acquitted.In these circumstances, as against the petitioners/A7 and 10 there is absolutely no evidence and as such, the pendency of the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003, would not serve any purpose and therefore, he prayed for quashment of entire proceedings.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that there are totally ten accused, in which, the petitioners are arraigned as A7 and A10 and only because of the absence of the petitioners before the trial Court, their case has been split up from the main case in S.C.No.202 of 2010, which was ended in acquittal.Therefore, the case as against the petitioners are 3/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 concerned, is pending in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003 for trial and the prosecution has to let in evidence and there are incriminating evidence as against the petitioners and as such, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and second respondents.7.It is the admitted case of the petitioners as well as the prosecution that there are totally 10 accused, in which, insofar other accused persons are concerned, the trial has been conducted and they have been acquitted in S.C.No.202 of 2010 and insofar as A7 and 10 are concerned, the case is pending in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003 and the same is pending for trial.Now, according to the prosecution, except the petitioner, the other accused persons have been acquitted form the charge.While acquitting the other accused A1 to A11, A13 to A20, the trial Court recorded the reason as follows:''The prosecution case is that when the defacto complainant PW 1 Sivam and PW 2 Pandi on 29.08.1994 4/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 at 6.30 p.m travelled in the town bus 3 A from karaikudi to Devakottai, the accused No.1 to 4 and the six other accused of the split up case in PRC No.13/2003 suddenly moved into said Town Bus 3-A at Aravayal Bus stop and assaulted the caused injuries with the case pallar based abusive words upon the defacto complainant -PW1 sivan and PW 2 Pandi in this regard.The prosecution examined the defacto complainant-PW 1 Sivam and PW 2 in this regard.But the defacto complainant -PW1 Sivam who as hostile witness disowned Ex.P.2 complaint allegedly preferred against the accused no.1 to 4 and six other accused of the split up case in PRC No.13/2003 did not support the prosecution about the charges,a lleged against the accused No.1 to 4 above said.Under the circumstances the prosecution case that when the defacto complainant- PW 1 Sivam and PW2 Pandi on 29.08.1994 at about 06.30 p.m travelled in a town bus 3- A from Karaikudi to Devakottai , the accused No.1 to 4 and six other accused of the split up case in PRC No. 13/2003 due to motive between the defacto complainant – PW1 Sivam and the said split up case accused no.1 Kumar suddenly moved into the said Town bus 3-A at Aravayal Bus stop and assaulted and caused injuries with the caste- Paller based abusive words on the defacto complainant -PW1 Sivam and PW2 Pandi in this regard, cannot be easily believed.6) However, submission on behalf of the prosecution is that all other evidence, produced by the prosecution would support its case alleged against the accused No.1 to 4 and other and that the prosecution 5/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 case alelged against the accused No.1 to 4 may be accepted.In such situation, Ex.P. 6wound certificate of the defacto complainant – PW.1 Sivam,Ex.P.6 Wound certificate of PW 2 Pandi and the evidence of PW 3 Inspector of Police, Karaikudi south P.S would not improve the prosecution case alleged against the accused No.1 to 4 .So the prosecution case that when the defacto complainant – Pw.1 Sivam and PW.2 Pandi on 29.08.1994 and 6.30 P.M travelled in the Town 3-! from Karaikudi- Devakottai the accused No.1 to 4 due to motive with the defacto complainant PW.1 Sivam, suddenly moved into said Town Bus 3-A at Aravayal Bus stop and assaulted and caused injuries with the caste pallar based abusive words upon the defacto complainant PW1 Sivam and PW2 Pandi cannot be believed as proved beyond reasonable doubt.Hence it is held for Point No.1 that the charges, framed against the accused No.1 to 4 of the offence under Sections 147,341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 have not been proved as alleged.The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 to4 shall stand cancelled.No material object has been recovered and produced for passing suitable order in this regard.'8.In this regard, it is relevant to rely the judgment reported in 2007-1 L.W.(Crl.) 514 – Tamilmaran Vs.The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi 6/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 Taluk, Thiruvarur District, where, this Court has held as follows:But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998 it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons.The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW2) and Smt. Asha Rani(PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/a) of the deceased Balwan Singh.Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.In the present case, except the petitioners, other accused have been tried the charges and acquitted in S.C.No. 202 of 2010 by the trial Court by the judgment dated 28.06.2011 disbelieving the case of the prosecution and holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.The petitioners being A7 and 9/11http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 10 are also standing in the same footing like the other accused persons.Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served to make the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of the trial.In view of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, is quashed as against the petitioners/A7 and 10 are concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petitions are closed.28.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes aav To1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, KaraikudiThe Deputy Superintendent of Police Karaikudi, Sivagangai District3.The Inspector of Police Karaikudi South Police Station Sivagangai District4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.17767 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,256,973	It is alleged that the petitioner, while working as Commissioner of Seamen's Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as SPF), during the year 1998-2002 entered into criminal conspiracy with Sanjay Agrawal, Director of M/s. Lloyds Brokerage / Euroasian Securities, Shri.Ketan Seth, Director of M/s. Ketan Seth & Company, Shri.Chandulal Thadani, Senior Assistant Seamen's Provident Fund and others, the object of which was to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating the SPF which was entrusted to the petitioner, in the matter of purchase and sale of Government Securities for and on behalf of Seamen's Fund by dishonest delivery of available securities for sale to brokerage firms and not receiving the proceed and also not taking delivery of securities for which he had placed money of SPF with a broker and in pursuance of the conspiracy, the account books of SPF were falsified by petitioner Anupkumar and accused Chandulal Thadani and private persons had dishonestly received the money and securities from SPF and had never delivered the securities or sale proceed to the SPF which resulted in wrongful loss to SPF and wrongful gain to the accused.Several other wrongful acts were attributed to the accused.Considering the issue involved in this proceeding, it is not necessary to elaborate the factual matrix of the prosecution case.Investigation was conducted.Sanction was granted under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 19(1) of PC Act for the prosecution of petitioner for the aforesaid offences and any other offence punishable under the provisions of law.He was appointed under Section 7 of the SPF Act by virtue of which he was an employee of SPF Board and not Government employee or a public servant.Mr. Pradhan learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in Criminal Revision Application No. 332 of 2013 submitted that the petitioner was appointed as the Commissioner SPF under the provision of Section 7 of the Act. He joined the services of Indian Railways as a Special Class Apprentice and on completing the probation, he was posted as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer.In 1996, he was serving as a Chief Mechanical Engineer in the Ministry of Railways.By virtue of notification dated 04.04.1996 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Surface Transport, he::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 7 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc was appointed as a Commissioner, SPF, Mumbai with effect from 09.02.1996 for a period of 4 years.The reference to the term 'Board' under Section 7(7) is thus Board of Trustee of Fund appointed under Section 5 who are also appointed to manage the funds collected from employees contribution and employer-ship owners contribution.The State Government or the Central Government did not contribute to SPF.All the employees appointed to administrator the Fund are employees of Board of Trustees appointed under Section 5 of the Act. It is submitted that SPF is a Trust and its corpus is managed by the Board of Trustees.The accused No.3 was appointed as Commissioner by the President of India vide notification.He served Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport.Whenever the person goes on deputation, such period is counted as a part of service for pension.Public Sector Banks manage funds of a private person.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::17A. In 1983 the petitioner joined the services of Indian Railway.After probation in 1987 he was posted at Jabalpur as Assistant Mechanical Engineer and in 1996 as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer under Central Railways.On 4 th/11th April 1996 under a notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, shipping wing.The petitioner was appointed as Commissioner in the Leamen's Provident Fund Organization, Mumbai w.e.f. 09/02/1996 for a period of four years.The notification was issued by under Secretary to the Government of India.By Order dated 18-07-2002 the petitioner was repatriated to Ministry of Railways vide O.M. dated 18-07-2002 issued by under Secretary, Railway Board.Section 15 relates to appointment of Inspector for the purpose of Act. Subsection 4 states that every Inspector shall be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC.The Government has also framed SPF scheme.As per Section 2(d) of the said scheme Commissioner means the Commissioner for SPF appointed under Subsection (i) of Section 7 of the Act. Section 3 refers to terms of office of chairman and trustees of the board.RBI had indicated that the Fund should be transferred and be managed by Nationalized Banks of Public Companies like ICICI etc. By Resolution dated 28 th November 1996, the board decided that, the work of investment i.e. to sell, purchase, transfer, endorse, negotiate, sign letter of indemnity and receive interest and principle of the fund to be done by Commissioner of the Fund.It was also decided by the Board to transfer and keep special deposit scheme in any nationalized bank, Central/State Government Securities in Physical and or in SGL form, and Bonds in Physical Form, for collection of the interest or and when it becomes due.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::notification of 17th March 1997, the Seamen's Provided Fund Commissioner had allegedly began transacting business in securities.The accused No.4 was Senior Assistant with SPF, he was responsible for accounting securities and sale proceeds.The SPF Act is enacted to provide for the institution of a Provident Fund for Seamen.The provisions are applicable to every Seamen and to the employer of such Seamen.Section 5 refers to constitution of board of trustees which reads as under :28 Of 36The Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute, with effect from such date as may be specified therein, a Board to be known as the Board of Trustees of the Seamen's Provident Fund which shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may, by that name, sue and be sued.(4) The terms and conditions subject to which a member of the Board may be appointed and the time, place and procedure of the meetings of the Board, including the quorum, shall be such as may be provided for in the Scheme.(5) The Board shall administer the Fund vested in it in such manner as may be specified in the Scheme.(6) The Board shall perform such other functions as it may be required to perform by or under any provision of the Scheme.Thus, it is evident that the Board of trustees of the SPF is constituted by the Government by notification under the official gazette.The board shall consists of chairman to be appointed by the Government, not more than three persons appointed by the Government from amongst its officials and the other persons referred to therein to be appointed by the Government.It is therefore apparent that it is the Government who constitutes, the Board of::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 29 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc trustees consisting several persons including the chairman.As per Section 7, the Government appoints SPF Commissioner who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and shall be subject to the General Control and Superintendence of the Board.The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the board of trustees is an autonomous body having no control of the Government is devoid of merits.(b) if the person to be appointed is at the time of his appointment -Sub-section 5 mentions that method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline etc. shall be specified by the Government.Sub-section 6 refers to method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of other persons and employees of the board shall be specified by the board with the approval of the Government.The Commissioner shall receive such salary and allowances and shall be subject to condition of service as may be specified in this behalf from time to time by the Government.Date of Reserving the Judgment : 16th July, 2018 Date of Direction/Clarification : 1st July, 2019 Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 8th July, 2019 JUDGMENT (Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-With the consent of both the parties, matters are heard for final disposal.The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4306 of 2014 (Herein after referred to as Petitioner) is prosecuted vide Special Case No. 83 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 409, 420, 465, 467 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act).In the proceeding arising out of Special Case No. 12 of 2006, the petitioner is prosecuted for offence under Section 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The matters were listed for directions/clarification on 1st July 2019 and again closed for Judgment.The petitioner thereafter::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 3 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 675 of 2011 before this Court.By order dated 03.08.2011, the order rejecting discharge application was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the learned Special Judge to consider the issue as to whether the petitioner is a public servant or not in the light of the observation of the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Dhanoa versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1981 (3) SCC 431).::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::The trial Court thereafter heard the application for discharge in Special Case No. 83/2003 and by order dated 02.07.2012, the petitioner / accused No.3 was discharged.The accused No.4 in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 had also preferred an application for discharge before the Special Judge.The prosecution case is that the CBI registered a case on::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 4 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc 10.05.2002 against Sanjay Agrawal, Ketan Sheth, Anupkumar Gond (petitioner) for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (c) (d) of the PC Act on the basis of complaint dated 09.05.2002 received from Shri D.T. Joseph, Director General, Shipping, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::On completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.In Special Case No. 12 of 2006, the petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Section 13(1) (e) of P.C. Act.The check period was February, 1996 to April, 2002 which is the exact tenure of the petitioner as Commissioner of SPF.Since the petitioner was discharged in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 vide order dated 02.07.2012, he preferred a Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2012 in Special Case No. 12 of 2006 for taking the judgment in rem.By order dated 01.11.2012, the Special Judge allowed the petitioner to produce on record the copy of order.The petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2012 praying for a direction to the prosecution to produce the record of the said application.The said application was allowed by directing the prosecution to adduce oral and documentary evidence.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::Since the issues are interlinked the petition and revision applications are disposed of by a common order.The petitioner was employee of the Indian Railway and on deputation he was sent to office of SPF and appointed as Commissioner of SPF.Hence the petitioner cannot be held as a public servant and cannot be tried for offence punishable under Section of PC Act, as the prosecution would be without jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not appointed or delegated with regulating and coercive power of the State and he was not appointed to represent the State in its relation to individual subject.After his deputation from the Railways to SPF, his ties with railways were cut off and his entire salary and allowance were paid from the Administrative fund of SPF, a Public Trust.The learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 has::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 9 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc rightly determined the petitioner's status that he has not a public servant.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4306 of 2014 and for Applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 332 of 2013 and 333 of 2013 vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Special Court discharging the aforesaid respondents in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 is contrary to law.Since the impugned order is required to be set aside, the question of considering the reliefs sought in Criminal Writ Petition 4306 of 2014 does not arise.He submitted that the trial Court has misconstrued the observation in the case of S.S. Dhanoa and the other decisions while allowing the application preferred by the accused.It is submitted that the accused are facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 477-A of IPC as well as::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 14 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act alongwith other accused.The contention of the accused / respondents that they are not public servant as defined under the provisions of P.C. Act is totally misplaced.The accused No.3 (Anupkumar) was working as Commissioner of SPF.There is sufficient evidence against the respondents to prosecute them for the offences.It is submitted that Section 7(1) clearly stipulates that the Government shall appoint any SPF Commissioner who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and shall be subject to the general control and superintendence of the Board.The sanction for prosecution was issued by the Railways.The High Court upheld the order of trial Court.The question involved before the Apex Court is whether the Chairman, Directors and officers of Global Trust Bank Ltd. (Private Bank) can be said to be public servants for their prosecution under the PC Act. The Supreme Court has observed that the Global Trust Bank was a Private Sector Bank operating under banking license issued by Reserve Bank of India.It was observed that under sub clause VIII of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform a public duty, is a public servant.Section 2(b) of PC Act defines 'public duty'.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::Learned Counsel for respondent in Criminal Revision Application No. 333 of 2013 has adopted the arguments of Mr. Pradhan.In addition he submitted that the said respondent was Senior Assistant.The trial Court has rightly discharged the said respondent from the provision of the PC Act. It is therefore submitted that the revision application preferred by the CBI may be dismissed.Having heard both the sides, I have perused the documents on record.The accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 were discharged from the provisions of P.C. Act vide separate orders dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Special Court.On 17-07-1997 a Circular was issued by Government of India through Ministry of Finance allowing "Non Government Provident Fund" in General to deal with Securities in order to invest their funds for short term returns.The petitioner had preferred an application for discharge::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::: 20 Of 36 wp-4306-2014.doc before the trial Court in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 vide Miscellaneous Application (Exhibit-135).In the said application, it was contended that he was not a public servant.The Special Court vide order dated 07.07.2010 rejected the said application.While rejecting the application it was observed that SPF was enacted for the benefit of Seamen's to provide Provident Fund under the Seamen's Provident Fund Act. SPF was enacted to manage this SPF Funds Board of trustees was created.The Commissioner of SPF was authorized to reform public duty.Subsequently, the application preferred by petitioner accused No.3 was reheard by the trial Court.The accused No.4 had also preferred an application before the trial Court.The question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner and respondent herein were public servant within the provision of PC Act and whether the trial Court has rightly discharged them from the prosecution under the said Act vide impugned orders on the ground that they are not public servants.The enactment of the PC Act was with the intent to wider definition of public servant.The statement of object and reasons of PC Act is as follows ;::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::32 Of 36The evidence of the witness was being recorded.Since the order dated 02.07.2012 is set aside.The question of issuing directions as prayed by the petitioner in criminal writ petition No.4306 of 2014 do not arise.In the light of observations in the Case of S.S. Dhanoa (supra), the accused No.4 also preferred applications for discharge on the same ground and both applications were allowed vide separate orders dated 02/07/2012 on ground that the said accused are not Public Servants.The said orders were challenged by CBI by preferring aforesaid Criminal Revision Applications before this Court.The trial Court shall also proceed with Special Case No. 83 of 2003 in accordance with law and shall conclude both the cases expeditiously.Hence I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 ::::: O R D E R ::Criminal Writ Petition No.4306 of 2014 is dismissed ;The Criminal Revision Application No.332 of 2013 and No.333 of 2013 are allowed and the impugned orders dated 02.07.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Application Exhibit - 135 and Miscellaneous Application Exhibit - 139 by Special Judge, CBI Bombay in Special Case No. 83 of 2003 discharging accused No.3 and 4 are quashed and set aside.Hearing of both the Cases is expedited.Considering these submissions, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue for a period of eight weeks as well as this order shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Najeeb::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 00:18:24 :::	['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
602,637	He has corroborated the evidence of his brother.He has stated that he was cutting the crop in his field and Pawanlal (P.W. 4) was working as his labourer.The accused persons came to the field of his brother and started causing injuries to him with barchi and axe.Brijlal (P.W.1) fell down and then they came to his field and assaulted him.He received injuries on his head, neck, wrist, right wrist and back.The injuries were bleeding.The accused persons were shouting to cause his death.He does not know how they sustained the injuries.Pawanlal (P.W. 4) has deposed that he was cutting the crop in the field of Bhaulal (P.W. 3).JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.The five appellants have been convicted under Sections 148 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively.The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between Brijlal (P.W. 1) and the accused persons regarding the use of water from a tank for irrigation purposes.On 8-12-1986 Brijlal (P.W. 1) and his brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3) were working in their field in village Sawargaon with their family members.At about 3 p.m. Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) daughter of Brijlal (P.W. 1) went to take some drinking water from a nearby well and came back shouting that she has been assaulted by accused-Dhaniram by a lathi.All the five accused persons also came chasing her.They were armed with barchi, axe and lathi.They started causing injuries to Brijlal (P.W. 1).He sustained eight injuries.Bhaulal (P.W. 3) was also attacked by them and he received eleven injuries.They became unconscious on the spot.Mungabai, wife of Brijlal (P.W. 1) also sustained injury while saving her husband.The incident was witnessed by Kishore (P.W. 2), son of Brijlal (P.W. 1), Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) and Pawanlal (P.W. 4) Kishore (P.W. 2) lodged the report Ex. P-2 at Tirodi police station at 6 p.m. on the same date.The injured persons were sent to the hospital for examination.There was fracture in the middle finger of the left hand of Brijlal (P.W. 1).According to the prosecution the accused persons attempted to commit murder of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3) in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.Their defence is that the complainant party was the aggressor and caused injuries to accused-Jhanaklal and Ruplal.Both of them sustained four injuries each.They acted in self-defence.It is also pleaded that accused Tikaram and Tukaram were not on the spot.They have been convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset.It would be proper to deal with the medical evidence first.Dr. S. R. Soni (P.W. 6) and Dr. K. K. Khosla (P.W. 7) have been examined.From their evidence it is proved that the injuries found on the persons of the complainant and accused side are as under :-1- Brijla1(P.W.1) Ex. P-6Incised wound 1.2" x 0.2" on the right side of neck muscle deep directing backwards.Lacerated wound 1" x 0.3" on the left side of head at frontal region directing antero posterior.Contusion 1.2" x 1.2" on the upper part of the right shoulder.Lacerated wound 2.5" x 0.8" on the lateral and back side of right forearm.Incised wound 2" x 0.2" on the back side of chest at right side at the level of 10th rib directing upwards and backwards.Incised wound 0.5" x 0.5" at right interphalangeal region.Lacerated wound 1.3" x 0.3" on the left ring finger at back and medial side on first phalanx.Contusion 0.8" x 0.8" on the back of left middle finger at first phalanx.Ex. P-12+ 13 Crack fracture proximal phalanx middle finger (left)2. Bhaulal (P.W. 3) Ex. P-4Lacerated wound 1.4" x 0.8" on the front side of right wrist joint.Transverse muscle deep.Incised wound 1.5" x 0.5" on the left side of neck directing upwards and backwards muscle deep.Lacerated wound 1.6" x 0.5" on the left side of head at frontal and parietal region directing upwards and backwards.Incised wound 1.3" x 0.2" on the parietal region and head of left side directing antero posterior.Contusion 2.5" x 1" on the left scapular region.Contusion 2.5" x 0.6" on the medial side of left scapula vertical 0.5" x 0.5" lacerated wound is present on its upper part.Contusion 4.5" x 1" on the left suprascapular region.Contusion 2" x 1" on the left side of abdomen 1" above the iliac crest.Lacerated wound 0.5" x 0.2" on the back and left thumb of interphalangeal joint.3. Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) Ex. P-101. Abrasion 0.2" x 0.2" on the front side of right thigh 4" above knee joint.It could have been caused by friction against hard and rough surface.Age of injury is about within 24 hours and will take about 10 days to heal provided no complication arises.Injury is simple in nature.Mungabai Ex.Contusion 1.5" x 1.5" at the right side efface near the angle of lower jaw.It could have been caused by blow of hard and blunt object.Age of injury is about within 24 hours and will take about two weeks to disappear provided no complication arises.Injury is simple in nature.Accused Jhanaklal Ex. D-5Lacerated wound 1.5" x 0.5" on the frontal region of head at right side directing upwards and laterally bone deep surrounding 1" area is swollen.Lacerated wound 3" x 0.8" on the left side of head of temporal and parietal region.Directing upwards and laterally, bone deep surrounding 1" area is swollen.Lacerated wound 0.9" on the back of left index finger at first interphalangeal joint.Lacerated wound 0.3" x 0.3" on the lateral side of left index finger of last phalanx.Accused Ruplal Ex. D-6Incised wound 2.2" on the back side of left scapular region at lateral side directing upwards and laterally.Incised wound 0.9" x 0.4" on the back of thorax on right side 2" below the level end of right scapula.Transverse and directly.Contusion 1.5" x 0.6" above the injury No. 2 and directing upwards and laterally.Contusion 0.6" x 0.6" on the left side of cheek.The medical evidence shows that both sides sustained injuries in the same incidentNow the other evidence is to be analysed.Brijlal (P.W. 1) has deposed that he was reaping the crop in his field.His daughter Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) went to a nearby well to take drinking water.She returned crying that accused Ruplal was chasing her armed with a barchi.The other four accused-Dhaniram, Tikaram, Jhanaklal and Tukaram were also with him.Jhanaklal and Tukaram were armed with axes.Dhaniram was having a barchi and Tikaram had a lathi.Ruplal was first to raise his barchi to strike and he took this blow on his left hand.Thereafter, all the accused started wielding their weapons on him.He sustained injuries on his head, right scapula, right arm and back.His brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3) came to his rescue and he was also assaulted by the accused persons.He has further stated that he became unconscious.He regained his consciousness in the hospital.In cross-examination he has stated that he ran to save himself and then he fell down in the neighbouring field of Ojhelal.He was assaulted in his own field.He has denied the suggestion that accused-Jhanaklal came to the field of Chovalal to ease himself and then he was beaten by him, Chovalal, Bhaulal and Kamal with axe and barchi.He does not know how accused-Ruplal and Jhanaklal received the injuries.Bhaulal (P.W. 3) is Brother of Brijlal (P.W. 1).He also became unconscious.He regained his consciousness after sometime when his face was washed with water.Kishore (P.W. 2) was sent to the police station for lodging the report.In cross-examination he has stated that he was cutting the crop in his field with a sickle.He has denied the suggestion that he himself, his brothers Brijlal and Chovalal opened the fight and caused injuries to Ruplal and his father Jhanaklal.He saw that accused Ruplal, Dhaniram, Jhanaklal, Tikaram and Tukaram came armed with axe and barchi to the field of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and caused injuries to him.He fell down and became unconscious.Then they came to the field of Bhaulal (P.W. 3) and attacked him.The accused persons were shouting to finish the two brothers.In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that Brijlal, Bhaulal and Chovalal caused injuries to Ruplal and Jhanakram.Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) has stated that she had gone to the well to take water.She was chased by the accused persons.They came to her field and caused injuries to her father Brijlal (P.W. 1) and her uncle Bhaulal (P.W. 3).Ghuranlal, Patwari (P.W. 9) has prepared the spot map Ex. P-14 as per indications given by the eye-witnesses.In this map, the incident is shown to have taken place in the field of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3).Accused Jhanaklal and Ruplal have stated in their defence under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that Jhanaklal had gone to the field of Chovalal, brother of Brijlal (P.W. 1) to ease himself and he was assaulted by Brijlal, Bhaulal, Kamal and Chovalal by lathi, axe and sickle.The other accused persons have stated that they were not on the spot.According to these reports Jhanaklal had gone to the field of Chovalal with a lota in his hand at about 3 p.m. At that time Brijlal (P.W. 1) dealt an axe blow on his head.Bhaulal (P.W. 3) and his son Kamal caused injuries to him by sickles.Ruplal went there to save his father and he was also assaulted by these persons.Bhaiyalal (D.W. 2) has stated that accused-Tukaram was with him in village Gudrughat.They learnt that Ruplal and Jhanaklal have received injuries in an incident in village Sawargaon and therefore they went there.On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of both the sides it is found that the incident of marpit took place in the field of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and his brother.It does not appear probable that Jhanaklal had gone in the field of Chovalal at 3 p.m. to ease himself.In case he has been there with a lota only and his son Ruplal had followed him empty handed there would not have been so many injuries on the persons of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3).The defence version tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities does not appear to be true.They came to the field of Brijlal (P.W. 1) armed with various weapons and caused injuries to him and his brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3).It is more probable that Jhanaklal and Ruplal sustained injuries in this incident when Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3) tried to repel their attack.Bhaulal (P.W. 3) was having sickle in his hand as he was reaping the crop and he must have used it in self-defence.That explains the injuries on the persons of Jhanaklal and Ruplal.The prosecution witnesses may not explain their injuries from their mouth and on that score the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out.Once it is found that the accused were the aggressors the injuries on the two accused cannot be blown out of proportions.They have also not said a word how Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3) sustained serious and grievous injuries as a result of which they fell down unconscious.Therefore, non-explanation of the injuries of the two accused on the facts and circumstances of this case is not fatal to the prosecution.Those injuries do not probabilise the right of private defence of the accused.The material which has been brought on record by the accused persons does not create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.The case law on this point may be referred to briefly.The incised injuries found on both of them have been described as simple in nature.They remain in the hospital for a number of days but it does not appear that the accused persons intended to cause their death.The appeal is thus partly allowed.	['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,263,873	THIS is an appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed against the order dated 09/11/2016, passed by Special Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in regard to Crime No.274/2016, registered at P.S.- Machalpur, District Rajgarh under Sections 294, 332, 353, 186, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1) (r-s) and 3 (2) (V-A) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in brief 'the Act').The appellant is apprehending his arrest in regard to aforesaid offence, therefore, he has filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., however, learned Special Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the application.Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Special Judge is not justified and is liable to be set-aside and the appellant be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned order.I have perused the case-diary.From the evidence, it is not reflected that the appellant has intentionally insulted or humiliated the complainant Rajkumar knowing well that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe.The incident has taken place in the night.In such circumstances, prima- facie, it can not be presumed that the appellant has committed an offence, which is punishable under the Act. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted in this case.Admittedly, the appellant is a Government servant.Considering the facts on record, I am of the view that the order passed by the Special Judge is not justified, hence, it is hereby set-aside.The appellant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail.It is directed that in the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his appearance in investigation as and when directed and required.The appellant is also directed that he will not threat, induce or make any promise to the prosecution witnesses and temper the evidence, otherwise his bail shall be cancelled.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the appellant during trial with the condition that if final report is filed, the appellant shall furnish fresh bail bond as per this order.The appellant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear that if the appellant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the appellant.The appeal is allowed as indicated above.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)	['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,281,730	C.R.R. 1833 of 2019 The State of West Bengal Vs.Ashok Shah Montu & Ors.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P, Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Ms. Meenal Sinha ..... For the Opposite Parties.The State has filed supplementary affidavit.Let it be kept with the record.In 3 the second paragraph of the said order the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to state that if the trial remains pending beyond the time frame fixed by the Apex Court, the petitioner may make an application for bail.	['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
602,836	The prosecution case was that on the night of 25th April 1948, a Sub-Inspector of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, accompanied by certain other Police Officers and some search witnesses went to premises No. 18, Fakir Chand Mitra Street and on search of the portion where this accused lived found under the bed and also in a trunk a large number of bread coupons which, according to the prosecution, are forged documents.A hand-printing machine was also found in one of the rooms and certain blocks from which it is said these bread coupons had been printed.There were some bread coupons the printing of which was only partly finished.The accused pleaded not guilty, his suggestion being that these bread coupons said to have been forged had been planted in his house by his landlord as an easy way for evicting him from the building.JUDGMENT Das Gupta, J.The appellant was tried by a Special Tribunal of Alipore constituted under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act, 1948 and convicted under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) of that Act, also under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) and Section 6 of the Act, and under Section 474, Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the first mentioned offence and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the second offence.No separate sentence was passed under Section 474, Penal Code.The two sentences under the two offences under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act were ordered to run con.It was further ordered that the hand printing press together with the printing outfit seized were forfeited under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.I have no hesitation in accepting this evidence as correct and find that these documents were prepared by some person with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by the rationing authorities.There cannot be the slightest doubt that in doing so, the person who made it had the intention to commit fraud by deceiving the officers concerned that they were genuine bread coupons, Whether or not Act XXIV [24] of 1946 which introduced rationing and the consequent bread coupons has legal validity after 31st March 1948, is of no relevancy on this question.For it is clear that whether it was necessary or not to have bread coupons in law, the person who made these coupons must have made them with the purpose of so using them and thereby deceiving certain persons to believe that they were genuine coupons and thereby gaining an advantage.I find it proved therefore that these documents that were seized were forged documents.As regards some samples which were printed on the machine then and there, I have examined these samples and find the printing there exactly similar to the printing on the forged coupons except for the fact that the base printing is absent.In my opinion the presence of the hand-machine in the accused's room together with the evidence as regards the samples is sufficient corroborative evidence of the accused's retracted confession.According to this the Special Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to try cases allotted to them in respect of such charges as may be preferred against the accused.Let the accused be released at once.Guha, J.	['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,285,210	This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 08.01.2021 in connection with Crime No.576/2020 registered by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District, Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to prosecution case itself, the prosecutrix is major aged about 30 years and she is already married having two children.Since the prosecutrix was being beaten by her husband, therefore on the assurance given by the applicant, it is alleged that the prosecutrix left the house of her husband and started living with the applicant.It is further alleged that whenever prosecutrix requested for marriage, then it was avoided by the applicant.On earlier occasion, the abortion was also got done.When the prosecutrix insisted for marriage, then applicant started beating the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix herself is a consented party.On earlier occasion also the prosecutrix had lodged report against her brother- in- law for offence punishable under Section 376 (i) of the IPC in which the accused was acquitted and thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix is habitual of making false allegation against innocent persons.	['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
60,291,561	It is submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel, that Crime No.25/2012 has been registered by Police Pandokhar, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506B of IPC.It is also submitted by the learned counsel that during investigation after collecting the evidence offence under Section 307 of IPC was also added against the accused persons but yet final report has not been filed.So, the appropriate directions may be issued to the investigating officer.	['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
104,870,892	Shri Abhijeet Bhowmik learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S. K. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State.The applicant has filed this application under section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.625/2013 registered at Police Station Bina, District Sagar for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506-B IPC and section of the Dowry Prohibition Act.This Court by order dated 9.1.2014 had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 9.1.2014 and as the petitioner has already furnished bail for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the arresting office and is complying with the conditions 2 MCrC. No.233/2014 Anupam vs. State of M.P.It is further directed that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 CrPC.The application stands allowed.C.C as per rules.	['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
104,872,404	Heard on argument.This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The present applicant has been arrested by the Police Station - Jharda, District-Ujjain in Crime No.197/2015 under Sections 354 and 354-A of IPC.According to the prosecution story, when the prosecutrix who is a married women went to nearby Jungle to attend the natural call, the present applicant came there and kept her hand and dragged her to a nearby bush when she raised cry, another women came and thereafter, matter was reported.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.This application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy, as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Chitranjan	['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']	Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
104,874,084	Mr. Sarvesh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 08.05.2019 by Police Station Dehat Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, in connection with Crime No.157/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 323/34 of IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant-Shailendra along with his friend namely Ankit Panthi, Abhishek Raghuvanshi and Anshul Sharma were eating food in a Dhaba at that time, at about 9.30 PM Chhotu @ Sanjiv, Shubham Raghuvanshi and Roshan Rajput came there and started assaulting them.Shubham assaulted the Shailendra by throwing the stones.Anshul, Ankit and Abhishek took the injured and Shailendra for hospital for the treatment then Chhotu @ Sanjiv Baghel along with Roshan and Shubham came on the spot and fired on Anshul Sharma by the Katta with the intention to kill him.Anshul Sharma died due to gunshot injury.On the aforesaid 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.47743/2019 (Abhishek Baghel Vs.State of M.P.) basis, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.Charge- sheet has been filed.No further custodial interrogation is required.Name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR.He is not the main accused.No recovery has been made from the applicant.The applicant has been made accused on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion if released on bail.On these grounds, he may be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Learned counsel for the complainant submits that blood stains were found on the shirt of the applicant.In the CCTV footage also, the applicant has been seen.Five witnesses are yet to be examined who had taken the name of the applicant.The witnesses in their statement stated that the present applicant came on the motorcycle along with Brajesh and Brajesh handed over the katta to the main accused.Therefore, Section 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.47743/2019 (Abhishek Baghel Vs.State of M.P.) 34 of IPC is attracted.On these grounds prays for rejection of the bail.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, it is not a good case in which the applicant be released on bail.Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands rejected.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge bj/-16:34:26 +05'30'	['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.