id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
104,888,047 |
Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.189/2018, registered at police station-Dhamnod, District-Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 376, 376(d), 323, 506, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, when prosecutrix was working in the field situated behind her house at that time co-accused persons Sandeep, Sanjay, Dinesh and Santosh reached there.Sandeep caught hold of her hand and when she cried then he shut her mouth with his hand, thereafter, the present applicant also came there and they have committed rape upon her.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C. No.50157/2018 2This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 17/12/2018 13:40:37
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,894,609 |
The factual matrix that emerges from the record is that on Crl.A. No. 755/2000 Page 1 of 9 06.01.1992, an information was received in police control room from one Rakesh Aggarwal that four men committed robbery in his house.Inspector Prakash Chand reached the spot and complainant - Rakesh Aggarwal narrated the incident saying/stating/explaining that when he opened the door at the bell, one boy of 18-19 years produced a box of sweets as having been sent by Guptaji of Shahdara.In the meanwhile three persons appeared and pointed a revolver and a knife, he was also hit on the face and pushed.Thereafter he was taken inside the room and was tied with an iron wire.As stated by the complainant, they enquired of him about the keys for the jewellery and also threatened to kill him.It is further submitted that he gave keys and those persons got the almirah opened and removed jewellery and other valuables from the almirah.His servant Ram Kishore also reached the spot.Description of the four persons was also given by the complainant.A. No. 755/2000 Page 1 of 9After registration of the case, two accused persons - Raju Maity and Surender Pal were arrested on 27.01.1992 and on search, certain jewellery articles were recovered from them.A. No. 755/2000 Page 2 of 9Inspector P. Pandey (PW-5), Sub-Inspector Subhash Sootardhar (PW-6), Sub-Inspector Parkash Chand (PW-7), Inspector M.C. Katoch (PW-8), Sub-Inspector Naseeb Singh (PW-9), Mr. Rajbir Singh (PW-10) ACP (Special Cell) Delhi Police, Mr. Raj Kishore (PW-11), Inspector Sh.R.L. Bhasin (PW-12) Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi.After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.A. No. 755/2000 Page 3 of 9Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant (PW-4) is the only eye-witness of the alleged incident of robbery, who had not supported the case of prosecution.The complainant in his testimony before the court had not identified the appellant as one of the robbers inasmuch as he could not say whether the appellant was amongst the robbers or not.In his testimony he had deposed that on 06.01.1992 at about 2.15 PM, someone rang the door bell and when he opened the door, Crl.A. No. 755/2000 Page 4 of 9 appellant - Nanhey was there.He gave box of sweet to him saying that it was sent by Guptaji and after giving the sweets, he went away.Thereafter, when PW-4 was in the process of closing the door, three- four persons came and attacked him.One of them put a string around the waste of the PW-4 with a ball of wire saying that it was a bomb and asked PW-4 about the keys of almirah.He gave the keys of almirah to them when he was threatened to be killed.After opening the almirah, they took a jewellery and other valuables, made PW-4 sit on chair, tied him with the chair and ran away with the jewellery and valuables.Before the assailants left his house, his servant Raj Kishore reached there and he was also tied and left in another room.PW-4 specifically stated that the appellant Nanhey was his earlier servant who had brought the box of sweets.He further deposed that the other three accused present in the court were not the persons who came to his house on the date of occurrence and robbed him.He further stated that there were four assailant who have robbed him on the date of occurrence at the point of revolvers.He could not say whether the appellant - Nanhe was amongst those four persons or not.Subsequently, upon their disclosures, other accused Rajender Pratap alongwith the appellant - Nanhey Lal were arrested.Appellant was charged under Section 392/397 IPC.In support of its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses.They are, Smt. Madhu (PW-1), Mr. Narender Singh (PW-2), Head Constable Girraj (PW-3), Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4),GROUND OF CHALLENGE The sole contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty for the offence of robbery.The complainant (PW-4) has specifically stated that the appellant had not participated in the commission of robbery.There was no other evidence against the appellant to connect him with the alleged offence of robbery.The prosecution had miserably failed to prove the recovery of alleged robbed articles from the appellant, and that was the reason he was not charged under Section 411 of IPC.The appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment on conviction as well as order on sentence.The prosecution had also examined employee of the complainant, namely, Raj Kishore (PW-11) who had also not identified any of the robbers during his testimony in the court.There is no other evidence on record to connect the appellant with the commission of alleged robbery.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the appellant for the offence of robbery.The stolen articles were recovered from the appellant.Though the role of the appellant was not attributed by the complainant but from the circumstances brought on record, the prosecution had successfully establish its case that the appellant was one of the robbers and he has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and also gone through the evidence as well as material placed on record.He also stated that police never brought any of the assailant to his house for the purpose of identification.A. No. 755/2000 Page 4 of 9PW-4 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State during which he stated that he could not say whether appellant was amongst those 3/4 persons who had robbed him.He stated that on 24.02.1992 he was standing Crl.A. No. 755/2000 Page 5 of 9 outside the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate when the investigating officer of the case had brought some accused persons and told PW-4 that they were the assailants of the case.He further deposed that he had not stated to the police that the appellant - Nanhey alongwith other assailants has tied his feets, threatened to kill him and was collecting the robbed articles.A. No. 755/2000 Page 5 of 9Another public witness examined by the prosecution was PW- 11 Raj Kishore, who had allegedly seen the robbers on the day of incident.This witness during his testimony in court had deposed that on 06.01.1992 he was working as an employee on the shop of Rakesh Aggarwal.On that day, Rakesh Aggarwal had called him at his house and he went to his house at about 2.30 PM.When PW-11 pressed the call bell, two boys came out; one of whom caught hold of PW-11 from behind and another put knife on his chest.They also fixed a plastic tape on his lips to seal his mouth.They took him to a room where he saw his employer Rakesh Aggarwal already tied.There were two more boys who tied his hands and put him in kitchen and locked the door.They also took away his wrist watch made HMT Mouriya.He specifically stated that he could not identify those boys due to lapse of time.He also stated that he did not know any of the boys before the incident not he had seen them anytime thereafter.He also stated that those boys were not present in the court, when his statement was recorded.This witness was never declared hostile or cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State to controvert his testimony.A. No. 755/2000 Page 6 of 9From the testimony of complainant PW-4, it is apparent that there is nothing in his testimony to say that the appellant was amongst the robbers.The complainant has specifically stated that though the appellant came to his house on the day of incident to deliver box of sweets but he went away immediately thereafter.He had not imputed the role of the appellant in the commission of robbery.He has specifically stated that he could not say whether the appellant was amongst the robbers.He had denied having stated to the police that the appellant alongwith other assailant had tied his feet or threatened to kill him or robbed him of his articles.There is nothing in the testimony of the complainant to connect the appellant with the alleged offence of robbery.He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State but during cross-examination also, he remained stuck to his stand that appellant was amonst the robbers.he has not stated anything in his testimony to the effect that the appellant was one of the robbers when the alleged robbery was commited at his house.Another eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW-11 Raj Kishore, who had allegedly seen the robbers on the day of incident.This witness has also not stated anything against the appellant in his Crl.A. No. 755/2000 Page 7 of 9 entire testimony.He had not identified the appellant as one of the robbers during his testimony record in the Court.A. No. 755/2000 Page 7 of 9In the absence of any such cross-examined by the prosecution, the testimony of this prosecution witness is believed to the extent that the appellant was not amongst the robbers on the day of incident.Apart from the testimony of above two prosecution witnesses (PW4 and PW11), there is no other evidence on record to connect the appellant with the commission of crime of the instant case.It was also alleged against the appellant that robbed articles were recovered at his instance.There is no substance in this allegation against the appellant for the reasons that no charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against him and secondly, there is no evidence on record to say that he was amongst the robbers what to say recovery of robbed articles from him or at his instance.As no charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the appellant, he cannot be convicted for an offence for which he was not charged.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2000 and order on sentence dated 18.11.2000 qua the appellant are set aside.He is acquitted of the charge framed against him.A. No. 755/2000 Page 8 of 9The appellant - Nanhey is on bail.His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2016 pkb/dd Crl.A. No. 755/2000 Page 9 of 9A. No. 755/2000 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,489,876 |
Respondent No. 2, K. Neelkanda Pillai is his father andRespondent No. 3, R.Rajam, his mother.On the basis of an information thatN. Suresh Rajan, during his tenure as the Minister of Tourism, had acquiredand was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name andin the names of his father and mother, disproportionate to his knownsources of income, Crime No. 7 of 2002 was registered at KanyakumariVigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 14th of March, 2002 against theMinister N. Suresh Rajan, his father, mother, elder sister and his bother-in-law.During the course of the investigation, the investigating officercollected and gathered informations with regard to the property andpecuniary resources in possession of N. Suresh Rajan during his tenure asthe Minister, in his name and in the name of others.P. Visalakshi Ponmudi (Respondent No.2)is his wife, whereas P.Saraswathi (Respondent No.3) (since deceased) washis mother-in-law.A.Manivannan (Respondent No.4) and A.Nandagopal(Respondent No.5) (since deceased) are the friends of the Minister(Respondent No.1).According toRespondent No. 1, the Minister, income of the individual property of hiswife and that of his mother-in-law and their expenditure ought not to havebeen shown as his property.According to him, the allegation that theproperties in their names are his benami properties is wrong.CHANDRAMAULI KR.Leave granted.Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that Respondent No.1, N. Suresh Rajan, during the period from 13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001, was aMember of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as also a State Minister ofTourism.The investigating officer not only examined the accusedMinister but also his father and mother as also his sister and the brother-in-law.The investigating officer also came to the conclusionthat Minister’s father and mother never had any independent source ofincome commensurate with the property and pecuniary resources foundacquired in their names.Accordingly, the investigating officer submittedthe charge-sheet dated 4th of July, 2003 against Respondent No.1, theMinister and his father (Respondent No.2) and mother (Respondent No.3)respectively, alleging commission of an offence under Section 109 of theIndian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of thePrevention of Corruption Act. Respondents filed application dated 5th ofDecember, 2003 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), seeking their discharge.TheSpecial Judge, by its order dated 25th of September, 2009 rejected theirprayer.While doing so, the Special Judge observed as follows:“At this stage it will be premature to say that there are no sufficient materials on the side of the state to frame any charge against them and the same would not be according to law in the opinion of this court and at the same time this court has come to know that there are basic materials for the purpose of framing charges against the 3 petitioners, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed and orders passed to that effect.” Aggrieved by the same, respondents filed criminal revision before theHigh Court.The High Court by the impugned judgment had set aside theorder of the Special Judge and discharged the respondents on its findingthat in the absence of any material to show that money passed fromrespondent No. 1 to his mother and father, latter cannot be said to beholding the property and resources in their names on behalf of their son.The High Court while allowing the criminal revisionobserved as follows:Applications have been filed for condoning the delay in filing andrefiling the special leave petitions.Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the delay in filing the special leave petitions has occurred as thePublic Prosecutor earlier gave an opinion that it is not a fit case inwhich special leave petitions deserve to be filed.The Government acceptedthe opinion and decided not to file the special leave petitions.However, on a second thought we find that thevalidity of the order impugned in these special leave petitions has to begone into in criminal appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions(Criminal) Nos. 3810-3811 of 2012 and in the face of it, it shall be unwiseto dismiss these special leave petitions on the ground of limitation.Itis worth mentioning here that the order impugned in the criminal appealsarising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 3810-3811 of 2012,State of Tamil Nadu by Ins. of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption v. N.In fact, by order dated3rd of January, 2013, these petitions were directed to be heard along withthe aforesaid special leave petitions.In these petitions the State of Tamil Nadu impugns the order dated11th of August, 2006 passed by the Madras High Court whereby the revisionpetitions filed against the order of discharge dated 21st of July, 2004passed by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Judge’), in the Special Case No. 7of 2003, have been dismissed.Leave granted.Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appealsare that K. Ponumudi, respondent No. 1 herein, happened to be a Member ofthe State Legislative Assembly and a State Minister in the Tamil NaduGovernment during the check period.Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 during their lifetime weretrustees of one Siga Educational Trust, Villupuram.In the present appeals, we have to examine the validity of the orderof discharge passed by the Special Judge as affirmed by the High Court.Hence, we consider it unnecessary to go into the details of the case of theprosecution or the defence of the respondent at this stage.Suffice it tosay that, according to the prosecution, K. Ponmudi (Respondent No.1), as aMinister of Transport and a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assemblyduring the period from 13.05.1996 to 30.09.2001, had acquired and was inpossession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in thenames of his wife and sons, which were disproportionate to his knownsources of income.Accordingly, Crime No. 4 of 2002 was registered atCuddalore Village, Anti-Corruption Department on 14th of March, 2002 underSection 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and Section13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter referred to as‘the Act’.During the course of investigation it transpired that betweenthe period from 13.05.1996 to 31.03.2002, the Minister had acquired andpossessed properties at Mathirimangalam, Kaspakaranai, Kappiampuliyurvillages and other places in Villupuram Taluk, at Vittalapuram village andother places in Thindivanam Taluk, at Cuddalore and Pondicherry Towns, atChennai and Trichy cities and at other places.In the course of investigation, it further transpired that during thecheck period and in the places stated above, other accused abetted theMinister in the commission of the offence by him.Respondent No. 2, thewife of the Minister, aided in commission of the offence by holding on hisbehalf a substantial portion of properties and pecuniary resources in hername as well as in the name of M/s. Visal Expo, of which she was the soleProprietor.Similarly, Respondent No. 3, the mother-in-law, aided theMinister by holding on his behalf a substantial portion of properties andpecuniary resources in her name as well as in the name of Siga EducationalTrust by purporting to be one of its Trustees.Similarly, Respondent No. 4and Respondent No. 5 aided the Minister and held on his behalf asubstantial portion of the properties and pecuniary resources in the nameof Siga Educational Trust by purporting to be its Trustees.It is relevanthere to mention that during the course of investigation, the statement ofall other accused were taken and in the opinion of the investigatingagency, after due scrutiny of their statements and further verification,the Minister was not able to satisfactorily account for the quantum ofdisproportionate assets.The Special Judgeholding the trial is deemed to be a Court of Sessions.The respondentsfiled petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code inter aliacontending that the system which the prosecution had followed to ascertainthe income of the accused is wrong.Respondents have also alleged that the investigating officer, whois the informant of the case, had acted autocratically and his action isvitiated by bias.The Special Judge examined all these contentions and byorder dated 21st of July, 2004 discharged Respondents on its finding thatthe investigation was not conducted properly.The Special Judge furtherheld that the value of the property of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 ought not tohave been clubbed with that of the individual properties and income ofRespondent No. 1 and by doing so, the assets of Respondent No. 1 cannot besaid to be disproportionate to his known sources of income.On theaforesaid finding the Special Judge discharged all the accused.Aggrievedby the same, the State of Tamil Nadu filed separate revision petitions andthe High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed all the revisionpetitions.In the opinion of the High Court, an independent andunbiased scrutiny of the entire documents furnished along with the finalreport would not make out any ground of framing of charges against any ofthe accused persons.While doing so, the High Court has observed asfollows:The trust is an independent legal entity assessed to income tax and owning the properties.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,901,198 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the framing of charges against the petitioners in S.C.No.164,2016, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.On 21.05.2016, at about 8.00 a.m., all the accused persons joined together and formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and attacked the deceased persons, as a result of which the deceased persons were killed on the spot.An FIR was registered by the respondent Police, and on completion of the investigation, a Final Report was laid against all the petitioners for an offence under Sections 147,148,449,302 r/w 34 and 506 (ii) IPC.The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,Cuddalore proceeded to frame charges against the accused persons under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 228 of Cr.P.C.On that day, the trial Court had read the charges in an omnibus manner without explaining the charges as against each of the accused persons, and signatures were obtained from the accused persons in a typed format.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the present petition has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings.He further submitted that the charges were read over to all the accused persons and explained and they have also responded to the questions put forth to them, and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the accused persons, in the manner in which charges have been framed by the trial Court.Questions have been put in an omnibus manner to all the accused persons without independently reading the charge and explaining it, to each of the accused persons and asking him whether he pleads guilty of the charge or claims to be tried.The learned Sessions Judge ought to have framed the charges on each of the accused persons and ought to have read and explained to each of the accused persons the charges against him and questioned the concerned persons regarding the charges framed against him.Shambhu Nath Singh And Ors, reported in JT 2001 (4) SC 319 ; and, [d] The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial, within a period of four months from the date of framing of charges as directed in clause (a).Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.18.01.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No KP Tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 91.The Inspector of Police, Reddichavadi Police Station, Cuddalore District.Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.N. ANAND VENKATESH,.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 KP Crl.OP No.3038 of 2017 18.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,903,052 |
In Crime No. 384/2018 registered with Baramati City Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail.2 Apart from cross complaint resulting into registration of Crime No. 383/2018 registered with Baramati City Police Station for offence punishable under sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 20:01:01 ::: 2 909.454.19 aba.doc34 of the Indian Penal Code, the role attributed to the applicant isthat of use of a sickle and causing injury on the nose of thecomplainant.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 20:01:01 :::(B) Applicant to attend Investigating Officer on 27/02/2019, 04/03/2019, 06/03/2019 and 08/03/2019 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.(C) Applicant shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 20:01:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 20:01:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 20:01:01 :::
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,905,604 |
1 2 However, the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.30,000/- with the trial court as condition-precedent to the petitioner obtaining bail.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,908,210 |
Khandu Vetal (PW-1), had a daughter by name Sunita.Sunita was married to accused on 19-4-1999 and aftermarriage Sunita started living with accused at Eklahare Village.The motherand sister of accused were also living with them.The father of accused wasin service with India Security Press and during the course of hisemployment, had died.PW-1 hoping that accused will get job in IndiaSecurity Press on compassionate ground, got Sunita married to accused,though at the time of marriage accused was unemployed.It seems PW-1 also advisedaccused to treat Sunita well, but that had no effect on accused.In themeanwhile, Sunita conceived and a daughter was born to her.6 On or about 18-9-2001, Sunita committed suicide by jumping infront of a running train.It is the case of PW-1, 15 days prior thereto, he hadvisited Sunita, when Sunita once again complained to him about the ill-treatment at the hands of accused.On the anvil of the aforesaid legal position, if the allegations enumerated above, are weighed, it becomes evident that the first allegation of insulting the first informant after she shifted to Juhu in the year 2010, is of general nature.The allegation is stale as well.DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2020ORAL JUDGMENT. :1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 3-11-2003 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, acquittingrespondent (accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 498A(Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and306 (Abetment of suicide) of Indian Penal Code.2 As none appeared for respondent, this court appointed MsSpenta Havewala as Amicus Curaie.Before I proceed with the case, I mustexpress my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour putforth by Ms Havewala, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immensevalue in rendering the judgment.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::Sunita hadstudied upto 12th Standard.For 12 months after marriage, the couple livedin Eklahare.According to PW-1, the relationship between Sunita and hermother-in-law and sister-in-law was not very cordial.But PW-2, who is thesister of Sunita, says that there were no serious disputes when Sunita wasliving at Eklahare and married life for some extent, was good.4 After about a year of marriage, Sunita and accused shifted toNashik Road.Sunita got job at the house of Nashik Station Master, whereshe was doing household work including washing of utensils.As part of thejob, she was allowed to occupy the servants quarters behind the stationmaster's house.Sunita was not being paid any salary.As accused wasunemployed, he used to get drunk and beat Sunita.It seems, accused wastelling Sunita to bring Rs.20,000/- from her father, i.e., PW-1, which couldbe used for doing some business.What business ? Nothing is mentioned.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::As PW-1, due to his own poverty was unable to pay the amount ofRs.20,000/-, accused used to beat Sunita.On 18-9-2001, the Deputy Manager ofNashik Road Railway Station lodged complaint at Nashik Road RailwayPolice Station.Based on the complaint, an inquest panchnama was done,post mortem was done and the cause of death given is shock due to poly-trauma.7 On 20-9-2001, PW-1 lodged the complaint for the offencespunishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC.After investigationand recording of statements, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC,Railway, Manmad, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial asthe offence under Section 306 is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.Thereafter, charges were framed and accused pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.Stand of defence is total denial.8 To drive home the guilt of accused, prosecution led evidence of6 witnesses namely; Kisan Khandu Vetal (complainant), father of Sunita, asMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 ::: 4/17 apeal-243-04(208).docPW-1; Shaila Ashok Gholap, sister of Sunita, as PW-2; Ashok KarbhariGholap, husband of PW-2, as PW-3; Bharati Tulshiram Gadakh, neighbour ofaccused and Sunita, as PW-4; Bhagwat Ramdhan Sonawane, HeadConstable, as PW-5; Vasant Gurulingappa Patil, PSI, as PW-6.9 The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs.State of U.P.1 has culled outthe factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing anappeal against acquittal.Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgmentread as under:::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::The following principles emerge from the cases above:The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court.A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would1 (2008) 10 SCC 450Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 ::: 5/17 apeal-243-04(208).doc have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision."Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;State of Gujarat 3has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded thatthe order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Courtfinds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrablyunsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at itsown conclusions.PW-1 says even when he visited the house of Sunita 4 or 5 times,Sunita mentioned to him about the ill-treatment.PW-1 says Sunita went tohis house just before delivery and 15 days after she delivered the child hewent to reach her at Nashik, where accused was living.PW-1 says at thattime, he requested accused not to consume liquor and also not to makedemand for cash or not to beat or ill-treat Sunita, but there was no changein the behaviour of accused.These are all general statements and nothingspecific.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::PW-1 in his cross-examination states that accused did not havea job because of which his wife and other family members were disturbed.The mother of Sunita is not a witness.I would have expected a daughter totell her mother all the problems, but strangely, the mother is not one of thewitness, who was examined.24 witnesses have been listed in the chargesheet, but only 6 witnesses, of which, two were police men, have beenexamined by prosecution.In his cross-examination, PW-1 admits that in hisstatement before the police, he has not mentioned that Sunita had gone tohis house for delivery and after her delivery she resided with him for 15days.PW-1 also admits that in his statement to the police, he has notmentioned that during that stay Sunita had informed him about the ill-treatment and demand for cash by accused.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::examination-in-chief that Sunita informed her that accused was insisting herto bring cash and she had not disclosed the amount.PW-2 says on the dateof incident, i.e., 18-9-2001, her husband (PW-3) informed her that accusedhad gone to his (PW-3) place of work and inquired about Sunita and alsoinformed him that he had slapped Sunita because she refused to preparemeals for some friends he had invited for dinner.I wonder, why PW-2would go and meet PW-3 at his place of work, which is almost 40Km fromNashik Road.Strangely, PW-2 says that accused even went to the school ofher daughter and when she telephoned PW-3, he informed her that accusedhad gone to the school of her daughter.PW-2 admits that she had notinformed the police that she had phoned to her husband after which, hereached the home.I have to note that the daughter of PW-2 and PW-3 hasnot been examined.15 PW-3 say that Sunita never told about the ill-treatment and thathe heard about it only from his wife.PW-3 say that till recording of his statementby police, he did not inform anybody about the meeting of accused withhim at Ashok Oil Mill, which contradicts that when PW-2 telephoned PW-3,he informer her about the meeting with accused at the mill.Therefore,evidence of PW-3 is not reliable.16 PW.-4, who is the neighbour of Sunita and Accused at NashikRoad, was called by prosecution to prove their case against accused.ButMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 ::: 9/17 apeal-243-04(208).docthis witness was declared hostile because she states that Sunita neverinformed her about the ill-treatment by accused under the influence ofliquor or about the demand of cash.PW-4 has also denied when the APPcross-examined her that Sunita ever informed her that accused used toconsume liquor and abuse and beat her.PW-4 also denied that Sunita everinformed her that accused used to never pay any money for the householdexpenses.PW-4 also denied that prior to the date of the incident, there wasa quarrel between Sunita and accused.In fact, PW-4 has denied the portionwhich is marked "A" that is recorded in her statement.17 Defence led evidence of Kusum V. Savle (DW-1), wife of theStation Master, in whose quarters Sunita and accused were residing.In theexamination-in-chief, DW-1 says that in her presence no dispute took placebetween Sunita and accused, nobody used to visit their house and Sunitanever complained about accused.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::Wehave to keep in mind that it is easy to accuse somebody of ill-treatment aftersome one dies, but it will not be wise to convict somebody based on suchgeneral statements.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::State of Maharashtra, through the commissioner of police &Ors.,4 in paragraphs 12 to 15, has observed as under:The allegations against the petitioners are, therefore, required to be appraised through the aforesaid backdrop.If we take the allegations in the FIR at par, qua the petitioners, at best, the following three allegations can be attributed to the petitioners :(i) After the first informant and Krishna shifted to Juhu in June 2012, the petitioners occasionally visited them and during those visits, insulted the first informant by calling her fat and dark complexioned.(ii) On every festive occasion, the family members of Krishna demanded clothes, ornaments and money from her parents and those demands were met.(iii) All the family members humiliated the first informant by calling her, "infertile" and made her to demand money from her parents.Whether the aforesaid allegations, even if taken at par, would warrant the prosecution of the petitioners is the moot question.It is indisputable that the cruelty under section 498-A of IPC has a specific legal connotation.Ordinary quarrels, differences of views and wear and tear of life, which every home witnesses, do not fall within the mischief of cruelty which section 498-A of IPC punishes.Nor, every ill-treatment or harassment falls within its dragnet.To fall within the tentacles of section 498-A, the married woman must have been subjected to cruelty which would drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand of property.Mere demand of money or property, unaccompanied by any harassment, would also not fall within the mischief of section 498-A. There has to be a nexus between the demand and the consequent harassment.::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 11:58:08 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,491,085 |
The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereafter ICAI).By the impugned order, the Board expressed its disagreement with the prima facie, opinion of the Director (Discipline) that the petitioner was not guilty of "other misconduct" falling within the meaning of Clause 2 of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 1 of 15 Act, 1949 (hereafter the Act).It is the petitioners case that the allegations made against him have no bearing with him carrying on the profession as a Chartered Accountant and, therefore, the Board and/or ICAI would have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in this regard.W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 1 of 15He had alleged that the petitioner had outraged the modesty of his daughter (hereafter referred to as HA) and also committed certain offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).He stated that the petitioner was acquainted with HA, as both of them were students of the same school and the petitioners residence was also located in the vicinity.It is stated that there was an incident of harassment in 2004 and a complaint was lodged by HA with Shalimar Bagh Police Station.In connection with the said complaint, the petitioner had submitted a statement on 12.09.2004, wherein he undertook that he would not go to the street on which HAs residence was located and would neither speak to her nor obstruct her while she was on her way.The complainant (respondent no.2) alleged that despite the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioner had repeated the offence twice, thereafter.3. HA alleged that the petitioner was stalking her and had repeatedly accosted her while she was on her way.It is further alleged that the petitioner had also distributed pamphlets on which HAs photographs were printed and the same was derogatory to her.W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 2 of 15VIBHU BAKHRU, JIt is stated that the petitioner continued to harass HA and on 29.06.2013, he had followed HA in his car and attempted to drag her inside the car.On HA resisting his actions, the petitioner had threatened to defame her and also throw acid on her.He had also thrown a letter on her face expressing his love for her, which HA found to be offensive.An FIR (FIR No.231/2013) in this regard was registered with PS Shalimar Bagh.Thereafter, respondent no.2 also lodged a complaint dated 19.09.2013 with ICAI for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.A copy of the said complaint was forwarded to the petitioner calling upon him to file his written statement.In response thereto, the petitioner filed a written statement dated 07.12.2013, inter alia, casting aspersions on the integrity and character of HA.According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 had made a false complaint to pressurize the petitioner to marry HA.According to the said investigation, HA had also made several phone calls and sent messages from her mobile number.The police authorities have filed a chargesheet in respect of FIR No.231/2013, accusing the petitioner of the offences under Sections W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 3 of 15 341/354/354B/354D/366/511/506 IPC.It is stated that charges under Section 366 IPC were subsequently quashed.Further, the petitioner was also released on bail by this Court by an order dated 24.10.2013 (in Bail Application No.1835/2013).W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 3 of 15In view of the above, the Director (Discipline), ICAI concluded that the allegations leveled against the petitioner relate to inter- personal relationships between HA and the petitioner and thus, it would be appropriate if respondent no.2 sought redressal of the problems in another forum."The Board considered the prima facie opinion dated 18th October, 2015 of the Director along with the Complaint, Written Statement of the Respondent and Rejoinder of the Complainant.The Board also directed the Directorate that in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, the prima facie, opinion formed by the Director including particulars or documents relied upon by the Director, if any, during the course of formation of prima facie opinion be sent to the Respondent and he be asked to submit his Written Statement."W.P.(C) 10020/2016 Page 4 of 15
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,911,866 |
As per the prosecution story, on 21.6.2019, near about at 6.30 pm., when Montu @ Rahul and Rohit were repairing the light in front of the house, the present applicant and other co-accused came there on two motorcycles.On one motorcycle, Ronak Gurjar and Jitendra Prajapat were sitting and on another motorcycle, Roshan Gurjar, Anmol Gurjar and Manohar Gurjar were sitting.Due to the previous enmities, Ronak Gurjar took out a pistol and fired three gun-shots, due to which, son of the complainant Montu @ Rahul sustained injury on his back and thereafter, they all ran away.The entire incident was witnessed by Shailu, Narendra Solanki, Pankaj, Ashish Mandeo, Shobha solanki.The applicant has filed the present revision being aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case No. 330/2019 whereby the bail has been rejected and the order dated 27.5.2020 whereby learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ujjain has dismissed the Cr. Appeal.Injured Montu was taken to the Civil Hospital and was medically examined.On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered the Cr.Case No. 664/2019 for offences punishable u/s. 307 and 34 of the IPC and u/s. 25 & 27 of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 1871/2020 Jinendra @ Anmol S/o.Late Shri Sudhakar.V/s.State of M.P.-: 2 :-the Arms Act. Since the date of birth of the present applicant is 10.11.2003 and at the time of the incident he was below the age of 18 years i.e. a juvenile, his case was putup before the Juvenile Justice Board and he was also produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.The applicant filed an application for release on bail.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred Cr. Appeal before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and that too has been dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2020, hence the present revision before this Court.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main allegation is against the co-accused - Ronak who fired three gun- shots.Though applicant has been made accused, but there is no recovery from him.Initially, the FIR was registered against Jitendra Prajapat, but after investigation, he has not been made accused in this case.The applicant is in jail since 1.7.2019 and there is no progress in the trial due to Corona epidemic.Learned Panel Advocate appearing for respondent/State, opposes the prayer by submitting that a 'child in conflict with law', who is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence and brought before the Board, such person shall be released on bail with or without surety, but if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 1871/2020 Jinendra @ Anmol S/o.Late Shri Sudhakar.V/s.State of M.P.-: 3 :-moral, physical or psychological danger, then the Board may deny the bail.There are six cases are registered against the present applicant and out of which, two cases are for the offences punishable u/s. 307 of the IPC, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.Shri Sharma learned counsel appearing for the complainant/objector also opposes the prayer by submitting that both the courts below have rightly denied the bail to the applicant in view of the proviso to Section 12 of the Act. The applicant has actively participated in the present case, hence, he has been made accused with the help of Section 34 of the IPC.He has a strong criminal History.He further submits that the co-accused Manohar has been denied bail by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2019 passed in M.Cr.He has been made accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.He has been denied bail by both the courts below because of his past criminal antecedents.Out of six cases, two cases have been registered on 20.5.2019 and three cases have been registered on 21.6.2019, 28.6.2019 and 29.6.2019 in the same police station.That in view of the proviso to the section 12 the court is not only required to examine the case on merit but there should be reasonable ground to believe that the release on bail is likely to bring THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 1871/2020 Jinendra @ Anmol S/o.Late Shri Sudhakar.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,371,951 |
Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC and respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC and also respondents no. 3 Prakash Narayan 2 Pandey and respondent no.4 Rajesh Patel from the charges punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code.Brief facts of the case are that on 17/07/2008 at about 6.30 pm, Shivam (deceased) went to his friend's house to take notebook but he did not return.At about 7.30 PM, complainant Rajmani Chaturvedi, father of the deceased received a phone call that the callers had kidnapped Shivam.The kidnappers demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom money.They also told him that if he would inform to police, they would kill Shivam.Complainant Rajmani Chaturvedi, father of deceased refused to pay any money and lodged a report under section 364-A of IPC in the police station Waidhan District Singrauli.On investigation police found that accused Prakash Narayan Pandey and his friends had kidnapped Shivam and when complainant refused to pay money, they beat Shivam (deceased) and killed him by strangulating his neck and threw his body in the river.Respondents had fraudulently purchased a mobile sim no. 9009472806 from the Idea company in the name of Phoolkumari for use in commission of the aforesaid criminal act.After recovery of body of the deceased, the First information Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged.During investigation statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-31 were recorded.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed and respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302 read with 120-B, 364-A read with 120-B, 201 and 468 of IPC.Respondents denied the guilt for the aforesaid offence.After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court acquitted respondent no.1Smt.Savita Devi Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC, respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC and respondent nos. 3 & 4 viz. Prakash Narayan Pandey and Rajesh Patel from the charges punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal.Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State submits that learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence correctly and acquitted the respondents.It is admitted fact that respondent no.1 Savita Devi 4 and respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey, are mother and father of respondent Prakash Narayan Pandey.On perusal of the evidence of Abha Singh (PW-11) and Rambhuvan Tripathi (PW-25), we find that Abha Singh (PW-11) was a tenant in the house of Ganga Shankar.On the date of incident, she gave her mobile phone to respondent No.1 Savita Devi, who called her husband Ganga Shankar Pandey (respondent no.2) and told about the incident.Rambhuvan Tripathi (PW-25) deposed that respondent Savita was calling and telling Prakash "where are you, come soon, here is a crowd".On examining the above said evidence, it cannot be concluded that respondent was involved in the incident.It has also come in evidence that respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey was not present on the date and place of incident.He had gone to Satna.There is no evidence that respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey deliberately went to Satna and hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the offence.After examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find nothing to indicate that Prakash Narayan Pandey (respondent no.3) and Rajesh Patel (respondent 5 no.4) forged the documents for obtaining sim in the name of Phoolkumari for committing an offence.Thus, we find that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court acquitting respondent no.1 Smt. Savita Devi Pandey under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC, respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC, respondent nos. 3 Prakash Narayan Pandey under Section 468 of IPC and respondent no.4 Rajesh Patel under Section 364 of IPC, can not be termed as unreasonable and perverse.The learned trial Court committed neither any error nor ignored any valuable piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution.Nothing is pointed to us from the impugned judgment which may amount to perversity or illegality.After properly appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a finding which does not call for any interference.In view of the above, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. filed by the State under Section 378(III) of Code of Criminal Procedure as well 6 as appeal filed by complainant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure are dismissed.The accused persons are the members of one family.Accused Komal, Raju alias Langda, Mattu alias Mahesh and Lachhi alias Lachhiram are brothers whereas Gullu alias Gulab is their father.Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 am in village Imaliya (Kadheli), Dhaniram Kirar (deceased) was standing near his house and abusing in filthy language.Accused Gulab armed with TABAL, Mattu alias Mahesh armed with KATARNA, Raju alias Langda armed with axe, Lachhi alias Lachhiram armed with SABBAL and Komal armed with sword surrounded 10 Dhaniram, assaulted him and caused injuries on his head and various parts of his body.As a result of such injuries, Dhaniram died on the spot.During the MARPEET, when Maltibai and Baribai, wife and mother of deceased Dhaniram came to intervene, accused Kerabai and Gauribai pelted stones on them from their house and caused injuries to Baribai.The reason of MARPEET being that six months' prior to this incident, son of accused Gulab died due to electric current and accused persons suspected that deceased Dhaniram might have given electric current to his son.Ashok Kumar Patel gave the information of the incident to the Police Station, Tendukheda upon which Rojnamcha Sanha No. 670 was registered on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 and on the telephonic information, the Town Inspector alongwith staff proceeded towards the spot.W hen Ram Prasad, cousin of deceased Dhaniram was going towards Police Station Tendukheda to lodge the report, on the way near village Ishwarpur, he met the Police Party and lodged the report there itself, which was reduced in writing as Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.P/3 at about 1:15 11 in the afternoon.On the basis of the report, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) was prepared.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,400,481 |
Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2008 and otherconnected matters, whereby the said Court convicted -(a) Arun Gulab Gawali (A-1), Sandip @ Sandy BaliramGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav (A-10), PratapTukaram Godse (A-12), Ajit Chandrakant Rane (A-13), SureshRaghunath Patil (A-15) and Sunil Sadashiv Ghate (A-20) for theofences punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 andsentenced each of them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for tenyears and to pay a fne of Rs.5.00 Lac.each, & in default of fne,sentenced them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years.(b) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sandip Gangan (A-9), ShrikrishnaGurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), Ajit Rane (A-13), Suresh Patil(A-15) and Sunil Ghate (A-20) for the ofences punishable underSection 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced to suferrigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fne of Rs.5.00Lacs each, and in default thereof, to sufer rigorous imprisonmentfor three years.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::9 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(f) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), Sandeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 10 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), AjitRane (A-13) and Suresh Patil (A-15) for the ofence punishableunder Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.7.00Lacs each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for threeyears.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(g) Arun Gawali (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), SandeepGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10), Pratap Godse (A-12), AjitRane (A-13) and Suresh Patil (A-15) for the ofence punishableunder Section 3(1) (i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentenced tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00Lac each, and in default thereof, to sufer rigorous imprisonmentfor three years.(h) Vijay Giri (A-2) for the ofence punishable underSection 3 read with 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencedhim to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay afne of Rs.5000/-, & in default, to sufer rigorous imprisonment forsix months.(a) The sitting Corporator namely Kamlakar Jamsandekarwas shot dead in his house by two unidentifed persons on 2 ndMarch 2007 at about 16.45 hours who were hired by associates ofArun Gawali who was the then sitting MLA of Akhil Bhartiya Sena(ABS hereafter) and head of an organized crime syndicate ie ABS.It is the specifc case of the prosecution that Accused Nos. 1, 9, 10,12, 13, 15 and 20 were members of organized crime syndicateheaded by Arun Gawali (A-1).Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 10, 12 and13 hatched a conspiracy to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar who wassitting Corporator of Shivsena party.Kamlakar Jamsandekar wasshot dead by Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) with a country made hand gun.Accused Nos. 2 to 4 accepted an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakh fromAccused Nos. 6 and 7 through Pratap (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13)who accepted a supari i.e. a contract to eliminate KamlakarJamsandekar due to political rivalry.Accused No.1 assuredAccused No.6 and Accused No.7 to get the work done.(b) Said Kamlakar Jamsandekar was declared as elected ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 12 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docCorporator & Ajit Rane (A-13) who contested that election heldon 1st February,2007 was the nominee of Akhil Bhartiya Sena(ABS) lost it.Ajit Rane (A-13) with a grudge in mind, gave acontract of killing Kamlakar Jamsandekar to Accused Nos. 6Sahebrao Bhintade and 7 Bala Surve.The prosecution claimsthat, Accused Nos.6 and 7 went to Arun Gawali (A-1) and gavehim 'supari'.Accused Nos.2 to 5 were then engaged asassailants by Accused Nos.12 and 13 through accused 10 Babu@ Shrikrishana.Accused Nos.12 and 13 along with AccusedNo.6 arranged gun and cartridges from the native place ofSurendra Panchal (A-8), and used for killing KamlakarJamsandekar.The said gun was recovered from Accused Nos.2to 5 from Kalbadevi area while attempting to commit dacoityon 26.4.2008 in the jurisdiction of LT Marg Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(c) Deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar resided at RumaniManzil, Chawl No.1, Room No.7, Asalfa Village, Mohili Pipe Line,Ghatkopar, Mumbai with his wife Komal, daughter, son andniece Manali Keshav Hire (Complainant).On 2 nd March 2007, atabout 16.45 hours, the complainant PW-7 Manali was in thekitchen.Kamlakar Jamsandekar was watching TV in theadjacent room.The wife of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 13 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnamely Komal (PW-1) had already left the house at about 4.00p.m.The complainant's cousin Sayali was packing her schoolbag near her father Kamlakar.PW-7 Manali heard noise likethat of fre crackers from the adjacent room.She rushed to thatroom and noticed two unknown persons leaving the said room.Kamlakar Jamsandekar was in the pool of blood and hadreceived the head injury.Manali (PW-7) rushed outsidescreening to save her uncle.Somebody contacted the policewho arrived at the place of incident immediately.KamlakarJamsandekar was admitted to Rajawadi Hospital where he wasdeclared dead.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Saki Naka Police registered theofence on the basis of the said complaint vide Crime No.82/2007 under Sections 120-B, 452, 302 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the ArmsAct and under Sections 37(1) and 135 of Bombay Police Act.The police from Saki Naka police station visited the spot andrecorded the spot panchanama (Exh.165).The photographs ofthe place of incident were snapped vide Exh.163 collectively.PW-21 P. I. Motiram Kasar conducted the investigation and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 14 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfound a scarbutt (Article-1) lying near the body of thedeceased which was detached from the gun used by theassailants.Police arrested Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane(A-13) along with Prakash @ Pappu Sawla (A-14), SubhashUpadhyay (A-16), Pankaj Kothari (A-17), Mohd. Saif MohiddinFaruqui (A-18) and Badrealam Badruddin Faruqhi (A-19).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(e) The dead body of deceased Kamlakar was sent forautopsy.The said report reveals that wad ofthe fred ammunition was found embedded in the brain matterof the deceased as well as the pellets (Article-7 colly.) wererecovered from the head of the deceased KamlakarJamsandekar indicating that weapon used was 12 bore countrymade handgun.(f) During the course of investigation statements ofwitnesses were recorded.(g) On 26th April, 2008 the secret information wasreceived by Police Inspector Sandbhor to the efect that somepersons were likely to commit dacoity in a jewelry shop atKalbadevi.The trap was laid and Vijaykumar (A-2), Ashokkumar(A-3), Narendra (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) came to be arrestedon 26th April, 2008 near Hotel Govindram at about 3.15 p.m.During their personal search, a country made handgun withouta scarbutt along with one live cartridge was found inpossession of Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) along with Nokia Mobilephone, some currency and driving license.Ashokkumar (A-3)was found in possession of 12 inch knife and some currency,Narendra Giri (A-4) was found in possession of 12 inch knifeand some currency and Anil Giri (A-5) was also found inpossession of one knife of 11 inch, one mobile and somecurrency as well as small pouch containing chilly powder.(i) Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were also found to be involvedin Crime No. 82 of 2007 registered with Sakinaka PoliceStation.Dinesh Narkar (A-11) along with Shrikrishna Gurav (During the course of interrogation of Accused Nos.2 to 5 it revealed that the country made handgun which wasseized from them was used for committing murder of KamlakarJamsandekar and thus scarbutt recovered by Sakinaka PoliceStation on the spot had got detached from the said handgun atthat time.Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10) andDinesh Narkar (A-11) arrested by DCB, CID in Crime No. 52 of2008 and were in custody; as per the orders of Special Court, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 17 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(j) PW-33 Divakar Shelke sent a proposal to the JointCommissioner of Police for obtaining prior approval (Exh.421)under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act and the said approval wasgranted on 20th May 2008, to register the ofence under MCOCAct.Further investigation was carried out by PW-37 ACPDuraphe.He arrested Arun Gawli (A-1), Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Sadashiv Surve (A-7) under the provisions of MCOC Act.(k) During the course of investigation, AshokkumarJaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4), Anil Giri (A-5), SandeepGangan (A-9), Shrikrishna Gurav (A-10) and Dinesh Narkar (A-11) expressed their desire to make confessions andaccordingly, their confessional statements were recorded byPW-17 DCP Vinaykumar Chaube, PW-15 Rajendra Dabhade,PW-23 DCB Vijay Singh N. Jadhav, PW-29 DCP Brijesh Singh andPW-18 DCP Dilip Sawant respectively.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docExecutive Ofcer Mr. Dattaram Kambli (PW-24) on 20 th June2008 at Mumbai Central Prison.PW-7 Manali Hire and PW-12 Motilal Chaudhary are two material witnesses who identifedthe accused actually giving efect to the crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(l) The Call Detail Records were collected by PW-37ACP Duraphe in respect of mobile phones of some of theaccused.Similarly PW-34 Prashant Gawde also produced CallDetail Records vide Exhs. 426 and 427 (colly.), refectingcommunication between Accused Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13.PW-35 Shekhar Palande, who is a Nodal Ofcer of Tata Servicesexplained the contents of CDR (Exh.436).Supplementary ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 19 Judg.(o) During the course of investigation, it was revealedthat deceased Kamlakar and Sadashiv Surve (A-7) were not ingood terms over some landed property.Sadashiv Surve (A-7)hatched conspiracy with Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6).6 and 7 approached Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13), who in turn gave contract to Arun Gawali (A-1) toeliminate Kamlakar Jamsandekar.A meeting was fxed byPratap Godse (A-12) particularly Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6)with Arun Gawali (A-1).Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane(A-13) took Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Sadahiv Surve (A-7)to the ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena, a political party of whichArun Gawali (A-1) was sitting MLA on the ground foor of GeetaiCo-op.Society Ltd., Dagadi Chawl, Byculla, Mumbai.(p) They met Sandeep @ Sandy (A-9) who is alsoassociate of Arun Gawali (A-1).They informed Sandeep (A-9)about bringing contract money, on which Sandeep (A-9) calledSuresh Patil (A-15) on his mobile phone by using the mobilephone of Pratap Godse (A-12).Suresh Patil (A-15) and Sandeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 20 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(A-9) took Sahebrao Bhintade (A-6), Sadashiv Surve (A-7),Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13) to the ofce of ArunGawali (A-1) on second foor of the building.Sahebrao Bhintade(A-6), Sadashiv Surve (A-7) handed over the amount ofRs.30.00 Lacs to Arun Gawali (A-1) as a contract money to killKamlakar Jamsandekar.Arun Gawali (A-1) instructed PratapGodse (A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13) to hire new killers in orderto avoid involvement of his gang.Pratap (A-12) therefore askedShrikrishana Gurav (A-10) to fnd out new shooters to killKamlakar Jamsandekar upon which Shrikrishna (A-10)contacted Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) and Narendra Giri (A-4) anddiscussed with them about the said contract.Vijaykumar Giri (A-2) fredat deceased Kamlakar from his country made handgun.Resultantly Kamlakar Jamsandekar died on the spot.Theaccused persons then fed away.Pratap (A-12) then paid Rs.30,000/ out of contract money to the killers.He is an accomplice who has procured the licensed gun.It is submitted that this witness does not connect gunwith accused No.1 and also does not show that when gun wasbeing procured, conspiracy to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar wasalready hatched.No specimen writing was obtainedfrom him and entries in diaries in his handwriting are not shown tohim.12 and 13 points out that they have been arraigned onlybecause of their participation in elections.Theseaccused persons therefore, had no reason to kill Kamlakar before1.2.2007 and it rules out any conspiracy at their behest.Investigation conducted by PW-21 who happens to beIO of Saki Naka Police Station is relied upon to argue that thisofcer Shri Kasar did not fnd any other evidence against accusednos.The story developed after obtaining MCOCAapproval is inconsistent with his investigation.PW-21considers all angles.The motive as alleged is not in consonance withthis story.The role played by accused nos. 12 and 13 and actionof accused nos. 2 to 5 are independent and have no bearing onaccused no. 1 or his alleged organization.Learned senior counsel submits that there is noevidence to show that room in Dagadi chawl belongs to accusedno.As per law, the MCOCA wasthen used and crime at Sakinaka Police Station was made over toDCB CID.He has invited our attention to letters dated 28/4/2008and dated 29/4/2008 when investigation was taken over by DCBCID.Accused persons were already in custody in one or the othermatter and as such there was no urgency to arrest anybody.93. PW-11 has established that accused No.10 is activemember of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and he was taken to accusedNos.12 and 13 in the ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena by accusedNo.10 only.There he was given mobile numbers to remain incontact.PW-11 then promised to help accused persons andaccordingly started making inquiries which lead him to accusedNo.8 Learned counsel submits that PW-11 remembers importantdates and he was given amount of Rs. 25,000/- by accusedpersons with threats to keep silence.He wasthreatened and amount was paid 8-10 days before he receivedsummons from the Court.It is submitted that the physics department with FSLre-assembled the handgun and scarbutt and PW-14 experttherefore has pointed out that said scarbutt ftted exactly andmatched with the handgun.Shri Phadtare has also enteredthe witness box & proved that the procedure was properlyfollowed.Accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu was plying an auto-rickshaw to earn livelihood.He knows accd.13 Ajit Rane & wasattending his ofce at Sakinaka Pipe Line, Parera Wadi.Ajit Raneis Kurla Taluka Vice President of Akhil Bhartiya Sena.Ajit sent himto Mahendra Bagwe in Byculla Dagdi Chawl & he became branchpresident of Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS).He has acquaintance withAccd.12 Pratap Godse, Accd.11 Dinesh Narkar, PW. 5 Pradeep ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 118 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShinde & Mohd. Arif @ Guddu.He also points out extortionbetween July 2005 to October 2005 from builders like Sagartek atSakinaka, Sadguru Developers at Ghatkoper (west), Tunga villagedevelopers at Sakinaka & Runwala Group.Builders werepressurized & told that they have come from Dagadi Chawl.Part ofmoney so extorted was paid to accd.1 Arun Gawali through AjitRane, Pratap Godse, accd.15 Suresh Patil and accd.9 Sandy @Sandip Gangan.His auto-rickshaw was driven by accd.2 Narendra@ Kandi Giri.Through Narendra, he came to know Narendra'smaternal uncle accd.4 Vijay Giri.Narendra & Vijay used to plyauto-rickshaws & ofences were already registered against them.They had absconded as Rabale Police Station was after them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In May 2006, Ajit & Pratap expressed need of a Gun tothreaten the builders.Accordingly he brought his maternal cousinPW-11 Dhaktya @ Ramchandra Gurav r/o Kharepatan, Distr.Sindhudurga to ofce of Ajit & Pratap.Dhaktya disclosed that Gunwould be arranged from Rajapur.Babu & Pratap gave their mobilenumbers 9819251750 & 9223202133 respectively to Dhaktya.After 4 or 5 days, Dhaktya telephoned to inform that Gun could bearranged.He, accd.11 Dinesh, accd.12 Pratap & driver RajaMulekar went to village in Tata Sumo vehicle.Next day, they went ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 119 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto village Vilaye in Rajapur with Dhaktya where introduced to accd.8 Surendra Panchal.There Acc.12 Pratap drew sketch of gun asrequired and accd.8 Surendra demanded Rs. 6000/ for it.Nextday they could not meet accd.They met at 7pm at Kharepatan wherePratap paid Rs. 3000/ as advance to Surendra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In August,2006, accd. 8 informed that gun was ready.Asdirected by accd.12 & 13 & with Rs. 5000/ given by them, Accd.10 Shrijrishna @ Babu & accd.11 Dinesh then went to village bytrain.On same day, with PW-11 Dhaktya in auto-rickshaw, allwent to village of accd.8 Surendra, paid him balance Rs. 3000/ &took gun in possession.10,11 & Surendra in auto-rickshawcame to Kharepatan where accd.8 Surendra brought 5cartridges,red in colour and he paid Rs. 300 / to accd.8 Surendrafor it.Then they returned to house of Dhaktya at KharepatanGuruwadi where accd.8 Surendra fred one cartridge todemonstrate that gun was working.Next day was a festival of Dahikala ie Krishnajanmashtami & hence, accd.1o/11 returned by train to Mumbaiwith gun & remaining 4 rounds.10 got down at Sion, went toaccd.12 Pratap & gave him the gun & cartridges.In 2006, at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 120 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docDurgadevi festival ie Navratri celebrations in Dagadi chawl, AjitRane gave him a card inviting accd.7 Bala Surve (deceased) for it.He went to Jangleshwar Mandir, Sakinaka but Bala Surve was notpresent.He then left the card in ofce of Bala.He learnt thattaking advantage of said festival, accd.In that ofce,Anita Ghaywat treated as sister of Ajit, also used to sit.Later number wassome times used by Anita Ghaywat.In January,2007 as Ajit Rane was to contest from wardno.152, he, Dinesh Narkar, Pratap Godse, Addu, Pradeep Shinde,Raja Mulekar, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu, Pintu RamkrishnaDhaykar,Abhijit Satam etc, started canvassing.In said election inFebruary, 2007 Ajit got 379 votes & was displeased as Shivsenacandidate Shri Jamsandekar won with huge margin.In February,2007, when he had gone to Travel's ofce of Ajit Rane, PratapGodse was present there.Pratap Godse, in presence of Ajit Rane asked himwhether two boys could be arranged for eliminating somebody.Healso that amount of Rs. 2.50 Lak would be paid to those boys.10 Shrikrishna promised to inquire & inform.On same day, hecalled Vijay Giri & informed him about the need.He asked Vijay tocontact him at Sakinaka near HP Petrol pump at 10.00 am.Onnext day, he met Viajay Giri & Narendra Giri at Sakinaka junction.After sometime one person introduced as Ashokarrived.Shrikrishna then called Pratap Godse using his mobile.Then they had tea together & went near HP pump.Pratap & Ajit ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 122 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docarrived on motorcycle.He took Vijay to one side & introduced himto them.That time it was agreed between Pratap & Vijay thatPratap would give gun, knives & Rs. 2.5 Lak & Vijay would withthe help of three, kill the person shown by Pratap.Pratap thenasked Shrikrishna to show ofce of Amit Travels to Vijay, Narendra,Ashok & then left with Ajit.Shrikrishna then has shown ofce ofAmit Travels at Chandiwali to those three & asked them to comethere at 10.00'o clock.Next day he came to the said ofce onDiscovery motorcyle.As ofce was closed, he called Pratap onphone who told him to fetch key from house of Ajit Rane & to openthe ofce.Accordingly, he brought key & opened the ofce.He,Vijay & Narendra sat there.Shrikrishna then saw Ashok standingoutside with one colleague.Vijay told that colleague was Anil Giri.Ajit Rane & Pratap Godse arrived there shortly.As directed by Pratap he took out a bag from a drawerin ofce & shown the Gun, Two cartridges, & Three knives to Vijay& Narendra.Pratap then informed that 3 cartridges were fredthrough said gun.Vijay & Narendra went out & brought Ashok &Anil in the ofce who also has a look at the articles.Pratap thenasked these 4 persons to go out & wait.Pratap then gave Rs.10,000/ to Shrikrishna & instructed him to give it to Vijay with ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 123 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docmessage to come on next day to collect the bag containing thearticles ie weapons.At that time, Ashok saved mobile number ofaccd.Pratap thereforeexpressed that group of 4 would not be able to do the work &abused Shrikrishna.He expressed that he would engage someother group.Shrikrishna then states that no other group washowever shown to him.On 2.3.2007 at 5 pm in the evening Vijay phonedShrikrshna that game of Kamalakar Jamsandekar was done &motorcycle was left near a timber mart near masjid at NarayanNagar, Ghatkoper.On 3rd March 2007, Anita Ghaywat, sister of Ajit Ranecalled Shrikrishna to the residence & told that phone calls werebeing made for the balance amount by Vijay & Kandi.She handedover the amount in a plastic cover and asked him to give it tothem.He called Vijay who then asked him to come near BorivaliNational Park Gate.He went there & handed over that plasticcover.He was not then aware of the quantum of the amount.This person hasattempted to retract it before the CMM.Eforts made by him &others on same line are being considered separately.He states in second part that since 4 months he wasstaying with his uncle Vijay & both were plying auto-rickshaw onrent in Tunga village of Sakinaka.InFebruary,2007, Vijay told him that he had a phone call from Babuwho wanted them to do work of a man (which means to kill aman).Babu was ready to pay Rs. 2.5 Lak for it.Both of them ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 127 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdecided to take help of his school friend Ashok Jaiswar & nephewof Vijay by name Anil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Next day Vijay took him to Sakinaka junction.They metBabu Gurav there.Shortly, Ashok Jaiswar also reached there.Vijayintroduced Ashok to Babu.Babu then informed on phone aboutthem to somebody.All then went to a Hotel, had tea & then cameto a petrol pump in the neighbourhood.Two persons arrived thereon motorcycle.Babu Gurav told their names to Ajit Rane & PratapGodse.Babu then took three to ofce of Amit Travels at Chandivaliand told them to come to that ofce on next day at 10.00 am.Next day they went to that ofce.Babu Gurav opened the ofce & showed to them a bagcontaining a gun, 2 rounds & knives.He asked them to come onnext day to collect it.Next day at 9.30 am.they reached AmitTravels.In ofce, Babu took out the bag from a table drawer &gave it to him with Rs. 10,000/. Babu asked them to come in theevening to take the bike ie motorcycle.They then returned home.In the evening, Narendra returned & took Discover motorcycleM.S. 03 AE 2476 in his custody.On next day as asked by Vijay, onbike he & Anil went to ofce.Vijay & Ashok also reached there.A ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 128 Judg.Addu then hadshown them that man.That man had a red tilak on his forehead.Addu told them that said man applied red tilak like that always.That man then proceeded towards his house.On 2.3.2007, all 4went to ofce to collect the bag.Narendra, Ashok & Vijaycollected bag & went to Asalpha village.At 4.30 Ashok alone went inside.He came out aftersome time & stated that man was alone inside.Viajy then took outthe gun from bag & loaded a round in it.He kept other round in hispocket.Narendra & Ashok then took a knife each from that bag &kept it with them.They reached near the house of that man.Narendra & Vijay went to thedoor.That man was sitting in chair with back towards the door.Vijay immediately entered inside taking gun out.Narendra wasstanding outside the door.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAfter shot was fred, they ran out towards themotorcycle.He started motorcycle.Vijay & Ashok sat pillion.Onnext day from the news paper, he learnt that the man murderedwas Shivsena corporator Kamalakar Jamsandekar.To facilitate the further application of mind, we deem itappropriate to note mutual corroboration between Babu &Narendra.Both were knowing each other since Narendra wasplying auto-rickshaw belonging to Babu Gurav.In February, 2007Vijay had a phone call from Babu who wanted them to eliminate aman.Babu was ready to pay Rs. 2.5 Lak for it.Both of themdecided to take help of his school friend Ashok Jaiswar & nephewof Vijay by name Anil.Next day Vijay took him to Sakinakajunction.Vijay introduced Ashok to Babu.Babu theninformed on phone about them to somebody.All then went toHotel, had tea & then came to a petrol pump in theneighbourhood.Babu then informed that two persons by nameAjit Rane & Pratap Godse arrived.Babu then took three to ofce ofAmit Travels at Chandivali & told them to come in that ofce on ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 130 Judg.He wasemployed in ofce of said party by Jitendra Dabhokar as a peon.Thereafter he started working as computer operator in that ofce.He was getting Rs.2,500/- p.m. as salary.He has givenNos.23015868 and 23091771 as telephone numbers of ofce.Hedisclosed that ofce bearers and workers of Akhil Bhartiya Senaused to collect information about construction works and otherevents or matters in their region and supply it to Arun Gawali.Thereafter builders and other traders were called in a room knownas "bhajanachi kholi" on ground foor of Gitai Building and ransomwas collected from them.This accused disclosed that he wasknowing that one Pappu Savla, a Matka king used to pay Rs.5Lakhs per month to Arun Gawali.Similarly, for Navratri celebrationor on occasion of a party programme, amount was collected andthat amount was deposited with him and with Suresh Raghunath ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 132 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPatil (Accd.15), Vasant Jayram Raut, Jayant Ingawale, VishwanathHinge (PW-25), Babu Dighe, Pandit, Santosh @ Deed and,ultimately, it was sent to Arun Gawali.Anybody who did not remitthe amount to Arun Gawli after collecting it in his name, wasbrought in "Bhajanachi Kholi" and beaten with belt and sticks.PratapGodse was then carrying a brown colour bag of size 1½ ft.x 1 ft.Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane in his presence using mobile contacted& asked Suresh Patil to come down.After short time, Suresh Patilcame there.Ajit Rane stayed in ofce.Sandeep, Suresh Patil,Pratap Godse and those two persons went to second foor of Gitaibuilding in ofce of Arun Gawli.Suresh Patil shut the door of thatofce from inside.Pratap Godse then handed over bag to Arun Gawalimentioning that it was containing Rs.30 lakhs.After signal by ArunGawali, Suresh Patil took bag in his custody.Arun Gawali thenspoke to those two persons and told that work of Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 133 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwould be done and they should not worry.After this assurance, he,Pratap Godse and two persons came to ofce.Pratap thendisclosed that the two persons were Bala Surve (accused No.7-nowno more) and Sahebrao Bhitande (accused No.6) Then Ajit Rane,Pratap Godse and those two persons left.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::At the beginning of January 2007 at about 4.00 clock inthe afternoon Suresh Patil called him (Sandeep) on second foor ofGitai Building and gave him Rs.60,000/- & asked him to hand itover to Pratap Godse standing near tea stall outside the gate.Accordingly, he paid Rs.60,000/- to Pratap Godse.That time PratapGodse disclosed that Nana Bhitande (accd.6) was to pay him Rs.10lakhs for work of Kamlakar Jamsandekar."work of KamalakarJamsandekar" means job to kill Kamalakar Jamsandekar.On 10/1/2007 election of Trade Union of MumbaiMahanagar Telephone Limited was being held and in it candidatesof Akhil Bhartiya Sena contested.At that time, on instructions ofparty head Arun Gawali, Suresh Patil had sent Ajit Rane, PratapGodse and other workers to Trombay Telephone Exchange forcreating disturbance by resorting to gundaism and to bogusvoting.Accordingly, Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and workers wentthere and created terror.Police then arrested Ajit Rane, Pratap ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 134 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGodse and other three persons.It also demonstratesaccused Nos.6 and 7 contacting accused Nos.12 and 13 andcoming to said organization at Dagdi chawl to contact accusedNo.1 and to give him the supari ie work to eliminate KamlakarJamsandekar.It brings on record the room on ground foor calledas Bhajanachi kholi where extortion amount was collected ordisobedients were punished.It also shows ofce of accused No.1on second foor, the activities of Akhil Bhartiya Sena like keepingwatch in the region to ascertain sources for demanding ransom, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 135 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docusing festivals etc. to demand and collect it.Spreadingatmosphere of terror by resorting to gundaism is also brought onrecord.Perusal of Part II of confession of accused No.3 Ashok Jaiswarshows that he happens to be a school friend of accused No.4Narendra Giri.Vijay hadmade that call from PCO in Dahisar and told him to meet at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 136 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMangatram Petrol Pump in Bhandup.Accordingly, at 6.30 in theevening he went there.There Vijay told him that a person was tobe killed and for it amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs would be paid.Vijay toldhim that this work was given by Babu.On next day he was calledat 10.00 a.m. at Sakinaka junction.On next day he met Narendraand Vijay, one more person was accompanying them and Vijaytold that his name was Babu.(This Babu is accused 10.) Babu thengave a call on his mobile and informed that Ashok, Narendra andVijay had reached.Then they went to nearby hotel, had tea andcame to H.P. Petrol Pump in the vicinity.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Two persons arrived on motorcycle there.Babu toldtheir names to be Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane.Babu took Vijaywith him and then those four went to one side and had a talk.Pratap and Ajit left thereafter.Babu took them to Chandivali andshowed them ofce of Amit Travels.They were called in that ofceat 10.00 a.m. on next day.Vijay called him (Ashok) near Rambaugpolice chowky at Pawai at 9.30 a.m. on next day.Vijay accordinglyreported at 9.30 a.m. Vijay, Narendra and Anil Giri were presentthere.Vijay then informed Babu on mobile about their arrival.Then four of them went on foot to ofce of Amit Travels.Ofce wasclosed.Shortly Babu arrived on Discovery Motorcycle.He then ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 137 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccalled Pratap on mobile and then left on foot.He returned shortlywith ofce keys.Babu opened the ofce with the said keys.Vijayand Narendra entered ofce with Babu.He and Anil were standingoutside the ofce on road.They also saw Pratap entering theofce.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Vijay and Narendra then came out and informed themthat they have seen the goods and Ashok and Anil should also seeit.(Here the context in which word "goods" is used impliesweapons.) All four went into the ofce.A bag was kept on table.Vijay took out gun, two bullets and three knives from that bag.Ashok and Anil then came out.Vijay and Narendra followed them.They were standing outside.After some time Babu came out andhe gave Rs.10,000/- to Vijay.Vijay told Ashok and Narendra tocome on next day to ofce to collect the bag containing weapons.Ashok then saved mobile number of Babu in his mobile.Vijay alsogave mobile numbers of Ashok and Anil to Babu.Then they leftthat place.This confession as recorded therefore shows that it is inconsonance with the story narrated by accused No.10-Babu oraccused No.4-Narendra.Accused No.3-Ashok in his confessionfurther states that on next date at 9.30 a.m., Narendra, Ashok ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 138 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docreached Amit Travels They found ofce shut.Ashok thereforecalled Babu on mobile and Babu arrived near ofce and wentaway.He returned back with ofce keys and opened the ofce.Hetook out bag containing weapons from drawer of the table andgave it to Narendra and he also gave Rs.10,000/- to Narendra.Ashok then returned home.As directed by Vijay he reached ofce of Amit Travels onnext day.Vijay, Narendra, Amit and Babu were present there.Pratap Godse also arrived and then a boy also came.Pratap toldthem that name of that boy was Addu.He informed them that saidboy would show to them the person to be eliminated and hishouse.On discovery motorcycle, Narendra, Amit and Addu left andreturned after one hour.Narendra and Anil told that Addu hadshown to them subject and his house.Thereafter everybodyreturned to their respective houses.This narration therefore is in consonance with the storynarrated by accused No.4-Narendra.Ashok in confession adds that from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 139 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docp.m.on next day and thereafter continuously for 10-15 days, theycontinued to search for subject at Asalpha village Andheri-Ghatkopar link road and subject was not seen.After showing thathouse to accused No.3-Ashok they described to him personality ofsubject and also told that said person was putting tilak of redcolour.These four persons were searching for him separately.Theywere parking their motorcycle infront of a Country Liquor Bar nearbus stop in Asalfa village.They used to pick up the bag (ofweapons) in the morning and used to deposit it back in the ofcein afternoon.During this period they used to take food at Kamalhotel.These eforts were being informed by Vijay to Pratap usingmobile of Ashok and Anil.Pratap used to scold them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::This therefore shows that confession by accused No.3 isin consonance with the facts disclosed by other accused personsin their confessions.On 2.3.2007 these four persons reached ofce ofPratap.Anil demanded money from Vijay.Vijay refused.Anil gotangry and left the place.Therefore, Ashok, Vijay and Narendracollected bag and reached Asalpha village.As usual they weremoving separately in search of subject person.Vijaycommunicated this to Pratap on telephone.Pratap told them toimmediately go to house of that person.In the afternoon at 3.30they reached his house.That person was sitting with 3-4 men.Hence, they had to wait again.After one hour, Ashok went nearthe said house and found that said person was sitting alone onchair.He came back and told it to Vijay and Narendra.Vijay andNarendra then entered the lane and went into the toilet located onleft hand turn.Vijay took out the gun from bag in hand of Ashokand loaded one bullet in it.He placed other bullet in his pocket.He(Ashok) and Narendra also took a knife each in their custody.He(Ashok) concealed his knife in socks.Ashok stood near window while Vijay and Narendrawent ahead towards door of house.Narendra stood outside thedoor.Vijay took out his revolver and came near room.He fred onebullet on said man.After hearing sound of bullet, running, theycame out.Narendra started motorcycle and other two sat pillion.They escaped and reached one lane in Narayan Nagar, They left ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 141 Judg.He also states that his uncle Vijay Giri and his maternalnephew Narendra @ Kandi (both accused) ply auto-rikshaw.A police case is registered against Anilat Kurar police station.He supports the story that Vijay made acall and brought everybody together.He received phone call fromVijay on his mobile No.9323709336 and he was told to come at10.00 am at Dindoshi Bus depot next day.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused persons.He thereafter gives his version that initially hehad tried to dissuade Vijay but then Vijay told him that he wouldget Rs.50,000/- and he had to only drive the motor bike.As heneeded money for the marriage of his sister, he agreed.Vijay thentold him to wait near his house at Film City Road, VagheshwariMandir on the but stop.Next day, Vijay and Narendra came bybus.One person came there on motor cycle and Vijayintroduced that person as Babu.Babu went on foot somewhereand came back after short time.He had brought a key and openedthe ofce.Vijay and Narendera went into the ofce with Babu.Heand Ashok were standing outside.Vijay and Narendra came outafter some time and informed that they had a look at the material(weapons) and Anil and Ashok can also have look at it.All fouraccused again went in the ofce.In the ofce, Vijay opened aplastic bag and showed them one gun, two bullets and threeknives.At that time, apart from Babu, two other persons were also ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 144 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpresent in the ofce.Afterwards, Anil and Ashok came out andshortly thereafter Vijay and Narendra came out.Babu then camout and paid to Vijay Rs.10,000/-.Vijay gave Anil's mobilenumber 9323709336 and mobile number of Ashok i.e.9224676768 to Babu.Then they returned home.On way, Vijaypaid Rs. 1,000/- to him.On the next day, Vijay called on his mobile andinformed that Narendra would come on bike to pick up Anil andboth of them should reach the ofce.On the next day he andNarendra came to the ofce on bike.Thereafter Vijay and Ashokcame there.One boy came to ofce and the person sitting in theofce introduced that boy as Addu.That person explained thatAddu would show to them the concerned person and place.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdrew their attention to him.That person had a red colour "tilak"on his forehead and Addu told them that the said person alwaysapplied tilak like that only.That person went towards his house onfoot.All three then returned to ofce and told it to Vijay andAshok.When he watched the television news,he learnt that Kamlakar Jamsandekar, Shivsena Corporater wasmurdered at Asalpha village.On the second day, Vijay invitedhim on telephone at Borivali National Park.He reached there inthe afternoon.Suresh Patil has statedin his confession that he is also known as Mothi Bank.He isresiding since his birth in Byculla, Dagdi chawl.Since 1997 he hasbeen working as watchman on main gate of Dagdi chawl of ArunGawli gang.He used to check people coming to meet Arun Gawliand regulated their entry.A person by name Sada Pavle hadplaced him as mathadi kamgar at Vashi Market with PW-25Vishwanath Ingale.He and Vishwanath were not working at Vashimarket but still getting salary.He was doing private jobs of Sada ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 147 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPavle for this obligation.As he did not get any other job, hestarted working for Arun Gawali gang.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Since 2001, Arun Gawali entrusted him work of lookingafter fnancial afairs.Arun Gawali used to pay him Rs.15,000/-p.m.for it.He was also getting paid for his additional expenses.Hewas popularly known as Mothi Bank.Arun Gawali and members ofhis gang used to collect extortion money from builders and cableoperators.People / victims of extortion were threatened bybringing them to Bhajanachi kholi located on ground foor of Gitaibuilding in Dagdi chawl.Some secret works of Arun Gawligang were transacted from second foor of Gitai building whereofce of Arun Gawli was located.As per instructions of ArunGawali, motor vehicles, motor cycles were purchased in the nameof various persons and those persons were paid monthlyallowances through funds with Arun Gawali.These vehicles wereused for gang work.The members of Arun Gawali Gang and ofce bearers ofAkhil Bhartiya Sena used to furnish information from their regionto Arun Gawali.Motiram Mahadik, resident of Mandar NiketanChawl, Byculla; working for gang used to collect ransom amount ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 148 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfrom builders and deposit it with him.Similarly, Sunil Ghate(accused no. 20) and Babu Dige used to collect amount of Rs.1.5lakhs every month from cable operator Arun kumar Singh (PW-6)of Mazgoan and deposited it with him for Gawali gang.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Pappu Savla and his partners Pankaj Shah, VinodBhagat, who were running Matka business, Jaya Bhagat runningKalyan Matka used to provide fnancial assistance to Arun Gawaligang.Hence their gang had killed Vasant Shah and Manish Shahat the instance of these parties.Because of this Pappu Chawlaused to pay Rs.5 Lakhs every month while Jaya Bhagat used topay Rs.1.5 lakhs every month to the gang.Prabhakar Raut of theirgang residing at Dagdi chawl used to collect money from PappuSavla while Suhas Rege used to collect amount from Jaya Bhagat.Either he (Suresh Patil) or then Vishwanath Hinge(PW-25) used to make entries of these amounts in diaries.Out offunds so accumulated, payments to members of gang andrelatives of deceased gang members, ofce bearers of AkhilBhartiya Sena, salaries of watchman, security and expenses ofdinner, breakfast of visitors were defrayed.Apart from this, entireexpenditure of family of Arun Gawali and their other expenseswere also entered into in small diaries by him.He then pointed out the elections conducted on10/1/2007 in Mumbai Mahanagar Telephone Limited.His narrationis in consonance with narration of accused No.9-Sandeep Ganganand it is therefore not necessary to reproduce it here.Accused No. 15 (Suresh Patil) then disclosed that inMarch 2007 Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane were arrested inconnection with murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAfter Arun Gawali was arrested in April 2008, they allstarted keeping away from Dagdi chawl.As directed by accusedno.20 Sunil Ghate, he took in possession diaries in which accountswere mentioned, attendance registers, two mobile phones ofNokia Company of Arun Gawali from ofce on second foor.Heplaced all these articles in a bag and handed over that bag toAnkush Gharkar, resident of frst foor of Gitai Building at Dagdichawl.Thereafter he left Mumbai and went to Pune frst andthereafter to Aurangabad and lastly to his native place.Police arrested him on 26/6/2008 and handed over toCrime Branch , Mumbai.He then took out said bag in presence ofpanch witnesses and gave it to police.He also states that because of terror of Arun Gawali andunder instructions of Advocate, earlier he had stated that he wasnot giving confessional statement.However, later on he startedrepenting for his mistakes and hence voluntarily, he gaveconfessional statement.Confession of accused 11 Dinesh Narkar is recorded byDCP PW- 20 Shri Yadav Dhum.This accused, in his confessionstatement recorded on 5/6/2008 submitted that he was 23 years ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 152 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docold and residing in Room No.46, 4th foor, Sanjivini Prasad,Khedgalli at Prabhadevi.He has taken education up to 11 thstandard from Elphistan College and then worked in diferentcompanies.Ofences were registered against him at Dadar, Worliand Crime Branch.As he was visiting Dagdi Chawl, he wasknowing workers of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and its ofce bearers asalso some gundas.He got acquainted with Kurla Taluka VicePresident of Akhil Bhartiya Sena Ajit Rane, resident of Sakinakaand its North-East region President Pratap Godse.Thereafter heused to visit ofce of Ajit Rane at Parerawadi, Sakinaka.In thatofce he got acquainted with Babu Gurav and Mohd. Sharif @Guddu.One Sanni Shirodkar in his area introduced him to PradeepShinde.He was aware that crimes were registered against PradeepShinde.In June 2005, he took Pradeep Shinde to ofce of Ajit Raneand introduced him to Pratap Godse, Ajit Rane, Babu Gurav, Pintu,Mohd.In May 2006 he, Pratap Godse, Babu Gurav and RajaGulekar went to Kharepatan in Tata Sumo of Ajit Rane.There theymet Ramchandra @ Dhaktya - a relative of Babu Gurav and wentwith him to village Vilaye in Rajapur.He learnt that Pratap thenhad inquired with a person by name Panchal about manufacturing ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 153 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doca gun.On next day Pratap Godse paid Rs.3,000/- as advance tosaid Panchal.Record at Ex. 170Coll.show payment of entertainment duty for years 1993 to 1998but the same are in the name of Sunny Cable Services.There is nomaterial to show that either PW-11 or accused 11 were at any timeassociated with this business.Omissions brought out in paragraph7 of his cross-examination are not fatal.Establishment ofChandrakant Shah is named as "Angel Photo".Mahendra Shah isrelative of Chandrakant Shah and known to Mahesh.He denied that when Gawali is in jail, Sunil Ghatelooked after the gang afairs & he (Vishwanath) was afraid of Sunil.He has been cross-examined and stated that there were7 buildings in Dagdi Chawl.After arrest of Arun, police hadcontinuously summoned him and 30 persons from Dagdi chawl tocrime branch unit III.After 2 months of thecommencement of trial, Shri Dhamankar had asked him to cometo ofce of crime branch with preparation to stay for two days andaccordingly, he stayed there.During that period he was asked notto leave that ofce & a person by name Gharkar was also there.(Ankush Gharkar is PW-10).Portion marked "A" to "D" in his policestatement militate with his denial thereof as noted supra.Hisstatement under S. 164 CrPC at Ex. 308 shows that he wascautioned fully by metropolitan magistrate on lines as adoptedwhile recording confession of the accused u/S/ 18 of MCOCA andthen he was given time till 22.7.2008 to think & make up his mindagain.On next day he was again made aware about theconsequences and to ward of wrong infuence or misconceptions,if any on him.This statement under S. 164 CrPC by him is inconsonance with the story put by Spl.Ex. 308 shows that Sada Pawle was a goonda of ArunGawli who arranged for his employment and employment of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 164 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSuresh Patil (accused 15) with APMC.Monthly wage of Rs. 3500 to4000/ was being received by them without reporting to APMC.Inreturn, both of them used to do household work of Sada Pawle.In1998, Arun Gawali was released from jail and boys in Dagdi Chawlstarted sitting on gate as "watchers" ie as guards.He & SureshPatil learnt that said boys might be getting Rs. 1000/ to 1500/ assalary, hence they also started sitting on gate.However they werenot paid salary for two months.In absence of Arun Gawali, SunilGhate used to look after the gang work.Arun Gawali then gavework of managing fanancial afairs of the gang to Suresh Patil.Asasked for by Suresh Patil, he started helping him.Entry of name ofperson giving money was written in the small diaries Accounts ofincome & expenditure were written.Arun Gawali was residing withfamily on third foor of Gitai building and had his ofce on 4 th & 2ndfoor Ofce of ABS was in ground foor & party afairs or monetarytransactions were carried out in it.There were two rooms in thename of Arun Gawli & Sunil Ghate which were joined together toform a "Bhajanachi Kholi" ie room for singing prayers.Builders,Cable operators & Merchants were threatened to fx the quantumof monthly protection money in that room.Goondas of Arun Gawali by name Motiram Mahadik and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 165 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSudhir Ghorgade used to bring the ransom from builders andperson by name Lallya used to help them.Sunil Ghate & BabuDige used to collect extortion amount from cable operators.PappuSawal & Jaya Bhagat used to assist Gawali gang fnanciallythrough Motiram Mahadik & Suhas Rege.In "navrartri celebration"& "Dahihandi kala", large sums were extorted from traders ascontribution.Out of fund so collected, the goons & families ofthose killed, were given help.Expenditure on festival, salaries ofstaf, watchmen, of ABS branch presidents, purchase of new cars,funds spent on fuel etc. was written in diaries by them.ArunGawali used to inspect those diaries.On 12 th July, 2008, ShriDound of Crime branch, Unit 3 called him & diaries 1 to 12 alreadyseized were shown to him.He then identifed his & Suresh'shandwriting in it.Shri Dound then inquired whether he(Vishwanath) would disclose whatever he told to him in court &Vishwanath agreed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::PW-9 Amrut is witness on discovery after disclosure byaccused 15 Suresh Patil u/S. 27 of the diaries containing theaccounts from custody of PW-10 Ankush.Accused 15 has inpresence of PW-9 volunteered to handover the bag containing theaccounts & documents of Arun Gawali gang which was left by him ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 166 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwith his friend PW-10 Ankush.There were 10to 12 diaries and some loose papers as also two cell phones.Accused stated that he understood it.Recording of this Part-I statement began at 17.15 hourson 27/5/2008 and it was over at 18.40 hours.At the end of thisstatement signature of accused with date below it appear on righthand side.On left hand side signature of Shri Fadtare with hisname and designation appears.He stayed in Goregaon since childhood & studiedupto 10th standard in Mumbai.He was not knowing anything aboutmurder of late shri Kamlakar Jamsandekar, Shivsena corporator.He did not receive Rs. 1000/- from anybody, especially from Vijay.Vijay his uncle was staying in Dahisar.He (Anil) works as assistantto cameraman in Balaji Teliflms.His signatures were taken onpapers already written & he had not given any statement.He was not knowing anything about the murder ofcorporator Jamsandekar.He does not work with Arun Gawali gang,knows nothing about it & was not knowing the ofce bearers ofAkhil Bhartiya Sena.He was falsely implicated in the matter.308. PW-24-Dattaram Kambli is the SEO who conducted TIparade in which witness PW-7-Manali Hire identifed accused 2 &4 and PW-12 Motilal Chaudhary who identifed accused No.2 VijayGiri, accused No.3-Ashok, accused No.4-Narendra Giri andaccused No.5-Anil Giri; PW-25-Vishwanath Hinge is the resident ofDagadi chawl who used to write the account books recoveredunder panchanama (Exhibit 183) from the house of PW-10-AnkushGharkar at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh Patil.He is also ahostile witness.It ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 211 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis contended that location of accused 3 Ashok Jaiswar in area oftower no. 1363 is doubtful since each tower is expected to cater toarea within 5 kms.CDR at Ex. 434 is therefore thecorroborative piece.Ex. 435 is the list of tower addresses and itsbelated production has not caused any prejudice to accused.At 14.15.53 hrs., phone no.9223202133 of Pratap Godse gave a call to 9833873756 of Ajit ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 212 Judg.Again at 16.48.17hrs.a call has been made from phone no. 9224676768 of Ashokto 9223202133 which carries this tower address.Prosecution haspressed total 16 calls made between 11.42.47 to 22.52.20 hrs.todemonstrate tower location of accused 3 Ashok, accused 12Pratap & other accused persons on 2.3.2007 ie the day on whichthe murder took place.There is no dispute about the other 15calls.Accused No.12-Pratap called accused No.3 at17.14.49 hours and Ashok then had gone upto Navapade lane,Kurla (w).Accused No.12-Pratap then called accused No.10-Shrikrushna at 18.12.58 hours.According to defence,that person / source did not give description of the suspects or thename of jeweler's establishment likely to be robbed whileaccording to prosecution he gave relevant details & was alsopresent at the spot.But then the fact that accused 2 to 5 wereapprehended from the spot disclosed by said source is not indispute.PW-31 Ramesh Bhokare attached to DCB, CID, CIUMumbai received the secret information about dacoity plannednear Govinram Lachhiram Vegetarian Snacks & Thali Restaurant.In his cross examination, fact that the secret informer was alsopresent at the spot of trap has come on record.This person hadearlier also given important information & traps laid weresuccessful.He deposes about the secret intelligence & its sharingwith superiors & laying of a trap as per directions of PSI Sandbhor.After the 4 suspects arrived, upon confrmation from the informer,he entered the above restaurant and sat behind them.He heardtheir plan that Pintu should go in Prakash Gold Palace with his"saman" , he, Kandi & Ashok would follow with their "saman" andafter job got over, he would reach motorcycle with Pintu's "saman"and then they would all meet at Dahisar.She has deposed that on2.3.2007 she returned home from college at 1.30 in the afternoon.Sayali daughter of Komal, this witness and Komal wife of deceasedKamalakar were at home.At 4.00 p.m. Komal left house and atthat time deceased Kamlakar was watching TV.He was sitting inchair near the door of room and this witness was in kitchen.Sheheard sound like bursting of a cracker and turned around.231 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShe rushed towards Kamlakar shouting to help him.Both unknownpersons ran away towards left side of their residence.Neighboursgathered and someone contacted police.According to her one of theunknown persons was with round face, straight nose andsomewhat black complexion.He was about 5.2" in height andabout 25 years old.Other person had a height of about 5.4" withsimilar complexion and medium built & between 25-30 years ofage.She then pointed out test identifcation paradeconducted on 20/6/2008 at Arthur Road jail.Total 14 persons wereexhibited and in frst round she identifed one as a person whofred upon her uncle i.e. accused No.2-Vijay Giri.On thecontrary, her cross examination shows that 7 persons out of 14were having similar features while remaining 7 had similaritiesamongst themselves.She further stated that all 14 persons didnot look similar to each other.It is to be noted that accused No.4 Anil Kumar andaccused Narendra as also accused No.3-Ashok have givenconfessions and later on attempted to resile from it.Evidence of PW-21 Motiram Kasar shows that in March2007, he was PI at Saki Naka Police Station and he hasinvestigated into the murder of Kamlakar.He had gone to scene ofofence and also taken photographs.When he reached the houseof Kamlakar, its entrance door was closed.He pushed it open andentered inside.He found Kamlakar seated in plastic chair withback towards entrance door and head leaning on left.His lefttemporal region had bleeding injury.He arranged to takephotographs and also identifed the same before the court.He alsopointed out a Scarbutt of fre arm lying on the spot.At 6.35 hrs hegot the information that Kamlakar had passed away.PSI Nalawade recorded the statement of Manali Hire atthe hospital and crime came to be registered vide C.R. No. 82 of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 238 Judg.The spot panchanama was also drawn and he found oneletter on the stool in front of the chair.He took that latter inpossession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::After arrival of the snifng dog, the dog was givensmell of Scarbutt and set out on trail.He returned back afterabout 25 minutes.Finger prints were obtained from the cupboardand scarbutt.He wrapped the scarbutt in khaki paper afterputting it in a plastic bag and then attached the labels bearingsignatures of panchas.He identifed the Scarbutt and alsosignatures on paper slip "1A".During the enquiry, he met Nita Shah and MayureshTandel.He recorded Nita's statement on 11.30 pm on the sameday.Mayuresh Tandel informed the control room about theincident and his statement was recorded after midnight.Heforwarded the cloths of the deceased, Scarbutt and bottlecontaining blood sample to FSL.During the investigation, he found that the murder wascommitted since accused no. 12 Ajit Rane lost the municipalelections.ACP arrested Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salve.239 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused 1Arun Gawali is its founder & head, & was elected as MLA withbanner of ABS.This organization or syndicate had an ofce withinmantralaya when accused 1 was MLA & also at Dagadi chawl.It had stafor members to collect the information of the prospective sourcesfor extortion & to summon the heads thereof to "Bhajanachi Kholi"to fx the monthly protection money ie extortion amount.Thisroom was formed by merging rooms belonging to accused 1 ArunGawali & accused 20 Sunil Ghate.These Appeals assail the common Judgment and Orderdated 31st August 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, MCOC Act,Gr.(c) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Shivakant Jaiswar (A-3),Narendra @ Kandi @ Lalmani Giri (A-4) and Anil Sherbahadur Giri(A-5) for the ofences punishable under Section 3(2) of MCOC Act,1999 sentencing them to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life andto pay a fne of Rs.5.00 Lacs each, and in default thereof, to suferrigorous imprisonment for three years.(d) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3) and NarendraGiri (A-4) for the ofence punishable under Section 452 read withSection 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to suferrigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fne ofRs.5000/- each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment forone year.(e) Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri(A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) for the ofence under Section 302 readwith Section 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing each tosufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00Lac each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for threeyears.There were total 21 accused before it & accused nos.14,16,17 to 19 were discharged while accused 8,11 & 21 have ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 11 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbeen acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Test Identifcation Parade wasarranged on 31st May, 2007 and 1st June, 2007 with help ofwitnesses Ms. Nita Shah and Mayuresh Tandel vide Exhibits -470 & 471 collectively.After completion of investigationchargesheet was fled by Sakinaka Police Station against sevenaccused persons in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 15 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMumbai.Then the case was committed to the Court ofSessions.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(h) The statements of some witnesses were recorded.Ofence was registered vide Crime No.118 of 2018 at L.T. MargPolice Station under Sections 399 & 402 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 16 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::The statements ofwitnesses also came to be recorded.Muddemal articles weresent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina for analysis.TestIdentifcation (T.I.) parade was arranged by PW-37 ACPDuraphe with the help of PW-33 Divakar Shelke and Special ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 18 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docchargesheets bearing Nos. 16 of 2008 and 3 of 2009 were alsofled in the said Court.All these cases were tried simultaneously asper the directions of the Special Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::They bothaccepted the said contract.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(q) Shrikrishana (A-10) then took them i.e. AccusedNos.They ofered themRs.2.5 Lacs for committing murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.Arun Gawali (A-1) asked Suresh Patil (A-15) to pay Rs. 60,000/-to Pratap Godse (A-12) for paying the said amount to the hiredkillers.Accordingly, Suresh Patil (A-15) gave amount ofRs.60,000/- to Sandeep (A-9) to hand over the same to Pratap(A-12) and Ajit Rane (A-13).Pratap Godse (A-12) and Ajit Rane ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 21 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(A-13) paid Rs.20,000/- as advance amount to Vijaykumar Giri(A-2) and Narendra Giri (A-4).Pratap Godse (A-12) and AjitRane (A-13) also handed over 12 bore country made handgunto them which they had purchased from Surendra Panchal(A-8), who had a license for repairing arms and ammunition.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::(r) As per the case of prosecution, PW-4 Abdul Rehman@ Addu pointed out Kamlakar Jamsandekar to Vijaykumar Giri(A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4) and AnilGiri (A-5).On 2nd March, 2007, at about 15.30 hours or so,Pratap Godse (A-12) informed to Vijaykumar Giri (A-2)telephonically that Kamlakar Jamsandekar was alone in hishouse, accordingly Vijaykumar (A-2) and Narendra (A-4)entered into the house of Kamlakar.The Special Judge framed charges vide Exh.133.Defence of the Accused is of total denial.The learned SpecialJudge after trial convicted the Accused as detailed supra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::22 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSince there is noevidence of any organized crime against accused Nos.1 or thenagainst accused Nos.9, 10 and 15 and murder of KamlakarJamsandekar cannot be viewed as organized crime in which theyhave participated, their confessions need to be disregarded.According to him motive alleged by prosecution isaccused No.13-Ajit Rane loosing ward election & deceasedaccused No.7 Shri Surve and accused No.6 Sahebrao having apersonal grudge against deceased.Learned counsel thus submits that in theentire story, there is no role ascribed to accused No.1 who himselfwas an elected MLA.Accused Nos.6 and 7 gave thecontract to kill Kamlakar to accused Nos.12 and 13 and, accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 23 Judg.Submission is thisstory is highly improbable and does not inspire confdence.He submits thatas per prosecution case new boys(strangers) were engaged asassailants by accused Nos.12 and 13 for this job.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::He has pointed out that evidence of PW-1-Komal, PW-7-Manali, PW-6, PW-10 and PW-11 is relied upon by prosecution.Similarly, PW-19 to PW-21 and PW-29, PW-33 and PW-37 are thepolice ofcers who participated in investigation and detection.None of these witnesses were aware of any act or role of accusedNo.1 in the matter.Our attention is invited to evidence of PW-7-Manali andit is submitted that she could not have, in a fraction of second,seen any accused person or described him or identifed him in testidentifcation parade.The fact that she did not doubt accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 24 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docNos.6 and 7 in the matter of murder of her uncle (Kamalakar) isalso highlighted.It is submitted that though she describedaccused Nos.2 and 4, in test identifcation parade, she has notidentifed correctly concerned accused according to theirdescription given earlier, thus there is material variance betweenher description of accused Nos.2 & 4 and persons identifed assaid accused persons in test identifcation parade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Our attention is also drawn to evidence of PW-6 ArunKumar who is cable operator.It is pointed out that he speaks of aphone call allegedly coming from "Dagadi chawl" to "Daddy".According to him the demand was communicated by accusedNo.20 Sunil and this witness also identifed accused No.20 inCourt.Omissions during his deposition are pressed into servicewith submission that this call was made way back in 1998 and assuch his deposition does not inspire confdence.By pointing out the evidence on record, it is submittedthat this witness was not concerned with Ashish Vision Cable andbusiness was being managed by one Reshimbai.There is no reference to SunnyCable in his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 25 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccepted that Reshimbai was owner of Ashish Vision Cable.Hecould not remember any building by name Gitai building.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Learned Senior advocate Gupte submits that pressurewas brought upon this witness by giving him impression that hewould be made accused and statement under section 164 ofCr.P.C. came to be procured.We are taken through that statementto show how the atmosphere of fear and tension was created inthe mind of this witness.Inspite of recording his statement,learned JMFC has recorded his confession and as such his evidenceis liable to be discarded.Not only this, PW-6 has complained aboutextortion almost after 10 years and his story therefore isunbelievable.PW-9 Amrut Patil examined as panch on discovery ofdiaries by accused No.15 Suresh under section 27 of the EvidenceAct is also read out to show that he does not support story ofprosecution that accused No.15 was writing entries in said diary.Itis submitted that this witness has also deposed only aboutmaintaining of diaries.Maintaining the diary does not implymaking entries therein.The diaries and papers allegedlydiscovered were not sealed and therefore writing of page numbers ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 26 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docupon it by Investigating Ofcer does not inspire confdence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::PW-9 Amrut in cross examination has accepted that hewas made to sign 50-60 papers.In normal circumstances he couldnot have been required to make such large number of signatures.These diaries and papers were allegedly in custody ofPW-10 Ankush.He was declared hostile and his deposition showsthat he does not know accused No.15 Suresh or PW-25Vishwanath.He has signed as directed by police and he also statesthat portions marked "A" and "B" in his statement are incorrect.Hehas denied events recorded in Exhibit 183-A and also denied bag ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 27 Judg.He has stated that he cannot read and pointed outthreats given to him by police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Shri Gupte therefore submits that efort made byprosecution to reach accused No.1 on the basis of evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 cannot succeed.Our attention is invited to evidence of PW-11 Mr.Ramchandra Jayram Gurav.As perstory of prosecution this witness made open enquirers everywhere about availability of illegal gun and in the process reachedaccused No.8-Surendra.He also pointed out advance paid toSurendra at Village Vilaye.However, he identifedthe same almost after 4 years and also identifes its missing butt.His identifcation of article 12 is therefore liable to be discarded.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::28 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe gun was procured in May 2006 and at that time theconsiderations like Corporation elections in the year 2007 oroutcome thereof did not exist & could not have been visualized.Conduct of this witness is also assailed by pointing outcomplaint made by him to Kanakavali Police Station almost after15 days of the incident.In that complaint this witness has statedthat he was paid amount of Rs.25,000/- for not disclosing the factsto police.He did not go to police immediately after the threat oracceptance of amount by him.He did not go to police stationwhich was easily accessible but reports the matter at a far ofpolice station.Material omission in his deposition are also pointedout.It is submitted that the police did not at that juncture seizethe cheque for the amount given to him.This witness was himselfdetained by police and enquiries were made with him thrice.Hemet accused in Court after August 2008 and had no contact withaccused No.10 in the meanwhile.He had gone to ofce of AmitTravels on 2.6.2006 and his family had two mobiles.Evidence of PW-5 Pradip is also read out to show howprosecution has tried to introduce a false story through him.This ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 29 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwitness claims to be friend of accused Vijay and in 2007 he wasofered allegedly amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and a revolver to killdeceased.According to this witness ofer was given beforeelection and he turned it down as amount of Rs.2 Lakhs wasinadequate.But he submitted that as per his deposition heassisted Bhartiya Kamgar Sena in elections and paid Rs.25,000 forit.Learned Senior advocate submits that evidence of this witnesscould not have been accepted by trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Vishwanath-PW-25 explained that accused No.1 ArunGawali also known as "Daddy" had a contact with him.Evidence of PW-28 Ketan is criticized by pointing outomission and by stating that this witness was paying ransomallegedly on behalf of some other person for several years andnever complained about it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::30 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docIt is submitted that thus evidence available againstaccused No.1 is not sufcient to show his involvement in anyorganized crime.He has then invited our attention to othermaterial with submission that said material is only in the shape ofconfessions recorded allegedly under section 18 of MCOCA.Hepointed out that confession of accused No.10 Shrikrishna isrecorded by DCP-PW-19 and a farce has been made to show thatrequirements of section 18 of MCOCA are satisfed.Certifcatewhich should be placed at the end of such confession, has beenadded later on vide Exhibit 251-B and it is not part of confession.No signature of accused is obtained upon it.Accused was produced before the Court on 17/6/2008and on that day he has withdrawn/ retracted his confession.Evidence of PW-19 Shri Fadtare shows that atmosphereon the day of recording of confession on 27/5/2008 or on28/5/2008 was not neutral.Staf of Mahim police station wasalready present at the ofce of PW-19 as if they were knowing inadvance that accused No.10 was to be brought there, he was to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 31 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docagree to make confession and he was to be placed with them.Thereforeonly duration of his custody or time given to him to reconsider,has not been brought on record through documents like stationdiary entries.Medical record which formed part of confessionproceedings recorded on 27/5/2008 should have been produced.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Learned Senior advocate contends that in order to fallunder section 18, confession has to be of main crime and notpertaining to peripheral afairs.Hence mention of accused No.1by accused No.10 is inconsequential.The alleged confession made by accused No.9 is alsochallenged on identical grounds.The letter dated 29/5/2008prepared for this purpose shows non application of mind andmention of accused No.10 in it is its example.It is furthersubmitted that in letter dated 27/5/2007, the year 2007 recorded ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 32 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis wrong.Misleading question was put to him as question No.8since accused No.9 was actually continuing in custody ofinvestigating ofcer.As per this witness, murder has taken placeafter 20 days of election.As per deposition of this witnesselections were over on 10/1/2007 & thus he is not speaking ofKamalakar's murder.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Accused No.9 has claimed that he paid amount ofRs.60,000/- to family of accused but then this story is far fromfrom truth.If any bag containing Rs.30 lakhs was handed over toaccused No.1, police did not produce it and words put in mouth ofaccused No.1 that work of Jamsandekar would be done as anassurance, are spoken of only by accused No.9 and by nobodyelse.Before 30.1.2007, the alleged assurance was given whenthere was no occasion for the same.Occasion arose on 2.3.2007as per story of prosecution when elections were conducted.Thusprosecution has fabricated a false story.Evidence of PW-29 who recorded confessionalstatement of accused No.9 is also read out with similar argumentsas noted supra while dealing with confession of accused No.10-Shrikrishna.Though accused No.9 was given time to deliberate,said fact is not recorded in the proceedings of confession.Even ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 33 Judg.It is further submitted that neitherconfession nor verifcation at its end were allowed to be read byany of the accused persons and the certifcate on last page aboutrecording of confession peacefully in neutral atmosphere isincorrect.The confession statement was not read over to accusedand even certifcate was not explained to him.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::After confession was recorded, accused No.9 was sentto Competent Court with duty constable and roznama dated21/5/2018 shows that he had refused to sign vakalatnama.He hadtherefore already retracted the confession and he has deposedabout it when his section 313 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded.Inviting attention to order sheet recorded on 21.5.2008, learnedsenior advocate states that the present accused no. 9, who thenwas accused no. 7, had refused to sign vakalatnama and even inanswer to section 313 Cr.P.C. examination on 04/01/2012,retracted the alleged confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::34 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused no. 15 Suresh had also on 15/7/2008 beforeSpecial Judge immediately withdrawn his confession.He statesthat both these accused persons only give hearsay evidence ofthe alleged conversation or the alleged handing over of money.None of them has role in the murder of Kamlakar and they do notin any way connect accused no. 1 with that murder.31. PW-18 has recorded the confession of accused no. 15.But he does not advance the cause of the prosecution.15 also has on 4.1.2012 at the stage of section 313 Cr.P.C.examination submitted a letter to the trial court and retracted theconfession.He has also withdrawn his confession on 26.6.2008 atthe time of frst remand.In this backdrop, learned advocatepointed out that the trial court has not placed any reliance uponthe accounts and diaries allegedly maintained by accused no. 15and hence, so called confession of accused no. 15 is rendereduseless.Evidence of PW-33 Investigating Ofcer Mr. Shelke ispointed out to show that the very same crime at Sakinaka hasbeen later on used by Crime Detection Branch.The Omissions ofwitnesses like PW-10 Ankush Gharkar and PW-25 Vishwanath are ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 35 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docproved through him.This witness was not sure of applicability ofMCOCA and mechanically proceeded further.Accused no. 1 ArunGavli was arrested on 20.05.2008 and in the order passed onthat day at Exh. 421, he could not have been shown as arrested.Thus there is manipulation as also non-application of mind.Therewas no change in the material from 30.04.2008 till 16.05.2008 andstill MCOCA has been invoked.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::Only source isaccused with their confessions and as such accused are entitledto the beneft of this error.The source of information has beendeliberately suppressed with an oblique motive.PW-35 Hasan Gafoor who granted sanction at Exh. 439on 17.7.2008 only mentions about the chargesheets fled in court ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 ::: 36 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbut does not mention whether cognizance thereof was taken ornot.The nature of crime in those chargesheets is therefore, notrelevant & the sanction order therefore is also vitiated.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:48 :::These accused persons have not given anywillingness till 20.05.2008 for giving their confession and PW-37has given wrong date about it.The fact that accused no. 11 Narkar has withdrawn hisconfession before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.6.2008 ishighlighted by him.Learned senior counsel argues that the trialcourt has acquitted this accused no. 11 as there is no evidence ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 37 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docagainst him except that of retracted confession and twoconfessions of co-accused.He pointed out that PW-37 wasnot aware of retraction before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::He submits that PW-33Shelke and PW-37 Duraphe who have investigated into thematter, did not act fairly and impartially.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::He submits that the alleged grudge against thedeceased entertained by the defeated corporater (Accused No. 13Ajit Rane), land dispute of deceased accused no. 7 with Kamlakarand dispute with accused no. 6 Sahebrao Bhintade are thereasons given by the prosecution.Accused no. 6 was onceregarded as a political guru of Kamlakar.He states that as perprosecution, accused no. 7 and 6 together approached accusednos.She has deposedabout the previous elections and position of rival parties.She did notdisclose to the court or to the police, the fles with her husbandthough she took period of 10 minutes to answer question ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 40 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpertaining to it.She has expressed no doubt on anybody andaccepted that accused no. 6 did canvass for her in the electionheld to fll in seat which became vacant due to death ofKamalakar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Accused no.7 (deceased) Bala Survewas raising unauthorized structures.Deceased had expressedthreats & insecurity perceived by him.He has deposed about two incidents which according to thiswitness show fear in the mind of Kamlakar but then he did notbring those incidents to the notice of PW-1 Komal.In relation to the deposition of PW-7 Manali, Shri Patilpoints out that except the alleged whispering of general public atfuneral about the role of accused nos. 6 and 7 in the murder ofKamlakar Jamsandekar, no other evidence exists.He took us ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 41 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthrough relevant portions contained in the alleged confessions ofaccused no. 10 Shrikrishna @ Bali, accused no. 9 Sandeep @Sandi, the confession of accused no. 15 Suresh Patil to argue thatexcept in confession of accused no. 9, there is no reference toaccused no. 6 anywhere in those confessions.He contends thatthe evidence of PW-7 Manali and these retracted confessions aretherefore, insufcient to support conviction of accused no. 6Sahebrao Bhintade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::421 dated 20.05.2008, accused no.6 is projected as part ofsyndicate of accused no. 1 in preamble itself.This mention runscounter to the motive pleaded by the prosecution.He has invited ourattention to sanction order and pointed out that it presumes thatthe conspiracy was hatched and accused no. 6 had aided andabetted in it.This observation is perverse.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::42 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe chargesheetExh.275 in relation to murder of Kamlakar was fled on 7.6.2007and thereafter no permission was obtained from JMFC toinvestigate further into the matter.He states that after MCOC ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 43 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docinvestigation, some accused named in Saki Naka chargesheethave been discharged and others continued in MCOCchargesheet.This IO had not arrested accused no. 6 or accusedno.The investigation papers were sent toDCB CID Unit III in April, 2008 and were also received back at thattime.DCB CID Unit III was investigating the Crime No. 66 of 2008dated 26.4.2008 in which it had arrested accused nos. 2 to 5 onthe same day on the charge of attempted dacoity.Theprosecution claims that on 26.4.2008, gun without scarbutt wasfound in that crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::If the photographs taken on that spot showexistence of scarbutt, such photographs should have beenproduced before the trial court and there was no need to suppressthe same.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::44 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThis witness PW-21-Motiram Kasar recorded statementsof relatives and personal assistant of deceased to gather motivebehind the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.PW-1 widow and PW-2 associate of the deceased did not give any useful information inrelation to Saki Naka crime.He points out that the sketch ofaccused persons drawn with the help of Nita Shah and MayureshTandel was not shown to PW-1 Komal or PW-7 Manali.Nita Shahand Mayuresh Tandel are not witnesses in the MCOC trial.Three teams were formed with defned duty-limits which investigated into the murder of KamlakarJamsandekar and then chargesheet was fled.Learned counselrelies upon paragraph 38 of cross examination of this witness tourge that Kamlakar was using a gun for hunting animals and thescarbutt if found on the spot, could have been of the gun ofKamlakar only.PW-32 Arun Kirtavade has deposed that furtherinvestigation was carried out by PW-21 Kasar and statement ofPW-7 Manali was recorded in hospital.Exhibit 276 is pressed intoservice to show that three unknown persons assailed the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 45 Judg.Learned counsel argues that there might have beenproperty dispute amongst family members of Kamlakar and thisangle is not investigated into.Nita Shah though eye witness, hasnot been examined with oblique motive.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::The deposition of PW-7 Manali is again read out tosubmit that it does not inspire confdence and she has in testidentifcation parade identifed accused with other description.Thus description & role of respective accused given by her doesnot apply to the concerned accused & proves confusion in hermind.It is urged that PW-33 IO Shelke was instrumental ininvoking MCOCA.Vide Exh. 416,permission under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. came to be granted byInvestigating Ofcer himself and a new crime vide CR No. 69 of2008 was registered.This was therefore, second FIR for the samecrime.About 17 days after its registration, accused no. 10 wasarrested.Trial court was never approached with a request as ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 46 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrequired under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The judgment reported at2013 (5) SCC 762- Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali is pressed intoservice by learned counsel.Similarly police authorities at Saki Naka andat DCB CID Unit III have carried out investigation which prejudicesthe case of other agency.Saki Naka Police did not hold any testidentifcation parade to enable PW-7 Manali to identify accusedpersons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Learned counsel Taraq Sayed submits that theprosecution has to explain relations between accused no. 12 and13 on one hand and accused no. 10 Shrikrishna Gurav as alsoaccused no. 8 on the other hand.He states that as per prosecution, PW-4 Abdul wasused by the accused 2 to 5 to reach house of deceased Kamlakarand he could identify accused no. 4, accused Anil and accused no.10 Shrikrishna.He accepted that there were hoardings depicting ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 47 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar in the area and Kamlakar was a known fgure.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::PW-11 Ramchandra Gurav does not deserve anycredence.It was not necessary for accused no. 12 Pratap to givephone number of accused no. 10 Balu to PW-11 Ramchandra.PW-11 Ramchandra and accused no. 10 Balu are relatives of eachother.Commenting upon the conduct of PW-11, Adv.TaraqSayed submits that PW-11 was enquiring openly for gun and metseveral persons, still he did not remember any name.The entireconduct of PW-11 is unnatural.His statement shows that he wasaware of the place where the gun was concealed and that gunwas left at the hidden place itself.It was not carried either byDinesh Narvekar or accused no. 10 Babu further to Mumbai.Thatgun was not with accused 2 to 5 for the purpose of the murder ofKamalakar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::48 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccording to learned counsel, accused no. 13 had nocase in the year 2007 and there was no efort made to trace outthe cartridges.He states that the cartridges left in the gun afterthe bullet is fred.He further argues that there is no evidence toconnect gun recovered on 26/4/2008 from accused nos. 2 to 5with the gun procured from accused no. 8 Surendra.Learned counsel states that there, he has referred tocountry made revolver while weapon in the present crime is ahandmade gun.Thus the same weapon was not shownto this witness Ramesh in Court.The date on label found in sealedpacket noted in the court proves tampering and planting of theScarbutt in the present crime.He submits that the deposition ofPW-27 Ajay Joshi who claims that the weapon was sealed on26/4/2008 is unbelievable as that seal has to be seal of CID.Hisdeposition shows systematic procedure followed while receivingthe weapon and bullets for examination.He has mentioned that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 49 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docExh.196 was a12 bore shotgun.The weapon was sealed by CIDand still he does not mention the seal by CID.He accepted thesamples as the seal of forwarding authorities and specimen sealmatched.However, there was no sample sent on 3/6/2008 andthere was no seal of CID.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Learned counsel states that as per PW-13 6yamsunderMunj handgun seized on 26/4/2008 and scarbutts recovered on2.3.2007 were sent together.This witness has accepted that"empty" remains in the frearm.There has been no investigationto trace out the cartridges left in the gun on 2.3.2007 after thebullet was fred on Kamlakar.This witness accepts that the countrymade guns do not leave any mark for investigation onpallets/bullets.Scarbutt therefore was not associated with anyweapon.He has read out the evidence of this witness to urge thatthe handgun could not have been and has not been connectedwith the murder of Kamlakar at all.Lastly he points out that there are no confessionsagainst accused nos. 12 and 13 and hence, accused nos. 12 and13 deserve to be acquitted.He draws support from the judgmentreported at AIR 1964 SC 1184 Haricharan Kurmi vs. State ofBihar to state that confession is strictly not an evidence & ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 50 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docconfession of co-accused can not be relied upon unless there isother incriminating evidence against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Learned counsel Adv.E.A.Sasi appearing for accusedno.10 in appeal no. 1093 OF 2012 points out that accused no. 10has been acquitted under the Arms Act and only charge againsthim is of conspiracy and of being member of a syndicate.Accused no.10 was arrested on 18/4/2008 in Crime No. 52 of 2008 by DCB CIDUnit III.Accused no. 10 or PW-11 could have no ideawhy gun was required and PW-11 was not member of anysyndicate.He has given a false story.Paragraph 12 of hisdeposition is relied upon for this purpose.It is submitted that healso came up with a false story of threat to him and of payment ofRs.25,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::51 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docEvidence ofPW-19 Dnyaneshwar Phadtare who recorded that confession isalso read out for this purpose and with a contention that nodocuments to show compliance with the procedure are producedon record.Advocate Pasbola for accused no.9 Sandeep andaccused no. 15 Suresh has submitted that only evidence againstaccused no. 9 is his own confession and two other confessions.Accused no. 9 has not admitted any guilt and as such hisstatement cannot be read as confession.He has not beenconvicted under section 302 or section 120B IPC and is notinvolved in any organized crime.He reads out charges as framed.The ffth charge distinguishedaccused no. 9 from the others.Confession of accused no. 15 Suresh Patil is also not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 52 Judg.He draws support from judgmentreported at (1999) 5 SCC 253--State vs. Nalini.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::He points out that all confessions allegedly recordedare after the unexplained and sudden change of heart that too atthe fag end of period of police custody.These confessions aredoubtful.All accused persons were making applications to retracttheir confessions and one of them even was not permitted toobtain legal advice.There is no CDR of anycall made by accused no. 1 to any other accused and vice versa.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::53 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe alleged diary maintained by accused no. 15Suresh or PW-25 Vishwanath are inconsequential.PW-10 Ankushdoes not support recovery thereof and there is no handwritingexpert to associate accused no. 10 with it.Advocate V. Sharda appearing for accused nos. 2 to 5has submitted that the story of obtaining intelligence aboutattempted dacoity on 26/4/2008 is unbelievable.The persongiving secret information did not furnish description of any offve suspects, name of the jewelry shop to be robbed and in thatsituation, contention of prosecution that it trapped accused nos. 2to 5 at 3.30 pm is unbelievable.Story of fnding of handgun withcartridges and knives with them and its recovery is unacceptable.Even station diary entry Exh. 316 is vague.Shepoints out that PW-26 Pancha on recovery is a pet witness and hedid not remember any details.His story about the sealing on spotcannot be accepted as there is no material and station diary entryto show that seals were removed from police station to the spot.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::54 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docShe claims that this weapon was described by Ramesh Bhokarein his deposition in Sessions Case No. 482 of 2008 as a revolver.She has taken us through the deposition of PW-26 toshow that he does not even identify the accused persons fromwhom respective material was seized.According to him,panchanama of seizure drawn on 26.4.2008 is not at all proved bythe prosecution.She points out that surprisingly the motor cycleallegedly used in attempted dacoity was made over onsupratnama to its true owner.Evidence of API PW-No. 27 is also attacked by urgingthat he contradicts PW-31 Bhokare.PW-27 states that the CrimeNo. 118 of 2008 was registered at LT Marg Police Station whileCrime No. 66 of 2008 was recorded at DCB CID ofce.Evidence ofPW-17, PW-21 does not inspire confdence as their 161 Cr.P.C.statements are recorded belatedly.Advocate Sharda submits that the seizure panchanamaExh.311 was drawn between 15.40 hrs to 17.45 hrs on 26.4.2008 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 55 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwhile station diary entry of Sakinaka Police Station shows thatthe papers were sent by Saki Naka Police Station to District CrimeBureau at 16.40 hrs.This shows a plan & tampering with adesign to falsely implicate accused nos. 2 to 5 since FIR itself hasbeen recorded at 19.15 hrs.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::In this backdrop, she has taken us through evidence ofPW-14 and she argues that Saki Naka police had correctlycompleted the investigation and arrested diferent persons asassailants.She relies upon the test identifcation parade bySakinaka Police Station on 31.5.2007 and on 10.06.2007 and itsoutcome.She further states that in test identifcation paradeconducted on 20.6.2018, witnesses like Nita and Mayuresh werenot invited.She has then pointed out how accused nos.3, 4 and 5have retracted their confessions immediately.She submits thatthere is no sign of any accused person at the end of the statutorycertifcate which is required to be given by police ofcer recordingsuch confession.Eforts made by accused persons even at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 56 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docsection 313 stage, torture pointed out by accused no. 2 Vijay arepressed into service by her.She states that accused no. 3 Ashokwas in fact arrested on 25.4.2008 and he has also pointed out historture.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::She points out that Exh. 435 wasproduced by this witness for the frst time in court though suchproduction was objected to by the accused.Learned counsel states that though serious objection wasraised, the trial court has ignored it and Exh. 435 has been lookedinto.This witness has not placed his seal or sign on CDR and hasno personal knowledge.His evidence also shows that there wereseveral towers within the range of 5 kms and Exh. 435 can not beused to show tower relating to accused no. 3 to be tower no.1363. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::57 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAdvocate Mundergi appearing for accused no. 20 hassubmitted that the evidence of PW-6 Arun does not inspireconfdence.He adopts the arguments of Advocate Shirish Gupteand other counsel for this purpose.He further states that PW-6'sevidence appears to be hearsay and cannot be used to convictaccused no. 20 at all.His deposition that money was taken foraccused no. 1 is an improvement.This improvement has beenmade only to rope in accused no. 20 as a member of the organizedcrime syndicate.20 or then it was used for the purposes of extortion by accusedno.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::58 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docWe have heard reply arguments of SPP (Special PublicProsecutor) Shri Chimalkar & his team as also APP Shri J. P. Yagnik.PP at the outset pointed out that all accused before trial Courtare convicts indulging in "continuing unlawful activities" andmurder on 2.3.2008 is only its manifestation.Local police atSakinaka Police Station conducted investigation and fled charge-sheet against 7 persons on 7/6/2007 i.e. within stipulated period.Eye-witnesses Manali and Komal were then not fully interrogatedand scar-butt recovered from room of Kamlakar was not accountedfor or associated with handgun.Neeta Shah and Mayuresh Tandelwho then identifed the assailants in TIP, had not seen actualassault or the assailants.Thus, investigation then was notcomplete.After 26/4/2008 when attempt of dacoity was foiled, themissing gun was found and involvement of those dacoits inmurder of Kamlakar came to light.On ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 59 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc29/4/2008 prior permission to invoke MCOCA in Crime No.52/2008was granted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Thus, investigation which left incomplete by Sakinakapolice was completed by DCB CID in MCOC matter.In the above backdrop learned Special PP submits thatcontention about absence of permission under section 173(8) ofCr.P.C. is erroneous as in MCOCA ofence's law does not envisagesuch permission from Court which is not authorized to takecognizance of MCOCA cases.The contention that there could not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 60 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochave been conviction for continuing unlawful activities is alsochallenged by submitting that since the existence andinvolvement of organized crime syndicate is established, everymember thereof is liable to be punished.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Our attention is drawn to evidence of PW-33 Shelke whoinvestigated the MCOCA ofence.It is pointed out that scar-buttwas not sent on 26/4/2008 by Sakinaka police to DCB CID.It wasdemanded on 8/5/2008 vide Exhibit 418 and received vide Exhibit419 in sealed condition.That seal was by FSL only.Handgun wassealed separately and said handgun and already sealed scar-buttwere then sent to FSL again.Earlier deposition of Ramesh Bhokre in sessions trialcase No.482/2008 is explained by pointing out that weapon issame and its loose description as revolver or handgun does notmake any diference.It is pointed out that accused persons 2 to 5who indulged in attempted dacoity on 26/4/2008 have been foundguilty and punished in Sessions Case No.482/2008 in that regard.He submits that with the assistance of PW-11-Ramchandra Gurav; accused No.10, accused No.12 and 13approached accused No.8 Surendra.The sketch of gun drawn by ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 61 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused no. 12 was made over to accused no.8 who thenmanufactured gun accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::He then fled complaint against persongiving threat vide Exhibit 188 at Kanakavli Police Station.It issubmitted that this evidence therefore shows systematic efortsmade by Akhil Bhartiya Sena of accused No.1 through its ofcebearers towards procurement of unlicensed handmade gun.Thisprocurement is itself an ofence under Indian Arms Act.Evidence of PW-6-Arun Singh is relied upon to show thathe paid extortion money as proprietor of Cable business Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 62 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docVison Cable.He pointed out that Sunny Cabel also paid ransom toArun Gawli.Thediaries recovered at the instance of accused No.15 shows this.Thefact that accounts of business of this witness are in the name ofwife does not help accused persons at all.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Evidence of PW-28 is also pressed into service to showthat he used to pay Rs.2 Lak per month and its receipt is alsorefected in above mentioned diaries & there is no materialomission in his deposition.Heabsconded and was arrested on 26/6/20087 at Kosegaon, Sangli.Arrest panchanama Exhibit 443 is relied upon for this purpose.Documents seized from him are mentioned therein.Thesedocuments include entry pass to Mantralaya.Though accused persons and witnesses are denyingany association with Akhil Bhartiya Sena, in letter written byaccused No.1, names of PW-10, PW-25 and accused No.15 are ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 63 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docmentioned.Handwriting in this letter is of accused No.1 only.PW-10 and PW-25 therefore are deposing falsely that they do not knoweach other.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Evidence of Investigating Ofcer PW-37 is relied upon toshow arrest of accused No.15 and recovery vide Exhibit 461 of 12diaries at his instance.PW-9-Amrut Patil is a panch on recovery ofthese diaries and under section 27, the diaries were seized frompossession of PW-10-Ankush.Though PW-10-Ankush has avoidedto cooperate with prosecution, he has signed recoverypanchanama.At that time two cell phones were also seized.PP points out Exhibit 183A to show11 pocket diaries and loose pages of running expenditure.In thisbackdrop, evidence of PW-10 is strongly relied upon.It issubmitted that evidence of PW-25-Vishwanath is on same linesand claim that he did not work for accused No.1 or then diaries ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 64 Judg.Section 164statement at Exhibit 308 is relied upon and it is claimed that thosediaries, sign and handwriting was identifed by PW-25 therein.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::It is submitted that precautions taken before recordingsection 164 Cr.P. C. statement by learned J.M.F.C. show that PW-25was given full understanding and was therefore not under anypressure or delusion when Exhibit 308 was recorded.PW-1 Komal Jamsandekar has pointed out the unfriendlyrelation of Kamlakar Jamsandekar with accused Nos.6 and 7 andshe has also disclosed some names in this respect.She haspointed out that her husband Kamlakar was againstencroachments and unauthorized erection of huts.She has givennames of few such unfriendly persons.PW-2- Bane was a closeassociate of deceased Kamlakar.Accused No.6 Bhintade agreedto purchase an ambulance which he never purchased.Because ofterror of Shri Bhintade deceased Kamlakar had developed bloodpressure.Learned Special PP contends that alleged omissionsduring her deposition are not material.He further states that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 65 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused No.7 deceased Bala was also enemy of Kamlakar.Sakinaka Police looked into motive with Ajit Rane only.It is submitted that after26/4/2008, role of accused Nos.12 and 13 and 6 and 7 togetheremerged & though they may have diferent motives, their objectwas same.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Evidence of PW-5 Pradeep Shinde is also read out toshow that accused persons had attempted to hire him forcommitting murder of Kamlakar but, Pradeep had refused as hefound the amount ofered inadequate.P.I. Dond had called forpapers from Sakinaka which were given on 26/4/2008 as perstation diary entry taken at 16.40 hours.He explains that thisentry is not about scarrbutt.PW-33 has registered crime in DCB CID Unit-3 in thatrespect and papers were then sent back and received by Sakinakapolice at 15.45 hours.At 16.10 hours papers were summoned bypolice ofcer again for the purposes of MCOCA case.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::66 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docLearned Special Public Prosecutor submits that thematerial supports the confessions recorded under MCOCA.Accused no. 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu and accused no. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::67 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc9 Sandy stood by their confession and there is no retraction bythem.Accused no. 3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar has attempted todisown the confession and tried to retract it but then this efort iswithout any merit.Similarly accused no. 5 Anil Giri, accused no. 15Suresh Patil, accused no. 11 Dinesh Narvekar and accused no. 4Narendra @ Kandi have also before the Metropolitan Magistratetried to show that their confession was not voluntary but havefailed in it.Each confession is read out to us to show how carefullyaccused was given every opportunity to reconsider his decision toconfess.Questions were put to them to fnd out any pressure orundue infuence or then any promises made by any authority topersuade them to give such confession.To dissuade him fromgiving it, he was pointed out that such confession may be usedagainst him and he could be punished on its strength.Afterexplaining all this, when he still wanted to record the confession,he was given time of 24 hours or more to deliberate again on hisdecision and on second occasion, after re-verifcation, he waspermitted to make the statement.Thus even on the secondoccasion, he could have resiled and refused to give the confession.During the period of 24 hours or more given to him to reconsider ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 68 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochis decision, he was kept in neutral custody i.e. away from theinfuence of Investigating Ofcer.Learned Special PP submits thatthese confessions are supported/corroborated by other materialon record and also support each other., The confessions therefore,have been rightly relied upon by the trial court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::The evidence of eye witness PW-7 Manali and evidenceof PW-12 Motilal Chaudhari is relied upon to show that thiswitness had seen the accused persons and identifed them in courtand also in test identifcation parade.There is no challenge to thefact that the scarbutt was found on spot i.e. in the house ofKamlakar.PW- 3 Ramesh Patil has identifed the scarbutt.It is submittedthat the panchanama Exh. 165 is also proved on record.PW-21 Motiram Kasar, Investigating Ofcer of Sakinakapolice station reached the spot when body of Kamlakar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 69 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docJamsandekar was there.He saw the body as also the scarbuttlying on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::PW-13 Shamsundar Munj of Forensic State Laboratoryhas explained the procedure followed after samples were receivedfor analysis.He pointed out how and at what stage the ballisticnumber is put on property received for test/analysis.SPP states that Kamlakar Jamsandekar was fred atfrom very close range.Special PP submits that the crime dated 26/4/2008 wasregistered with LT Marg Police Station but the investigationcontinued with CIU.CIU sent the handgun to DCB(CID) which inturn collected scarbutt from Sakinaka police station.The handgunand scarbutt were then forwarded by DCB to the FSL.Thescarbutt with Sakinana police was already having seal put by FSLwhile handgun was sealed by CIU.The emptys after fring remained inthe gun only.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::70 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo facilitate consideration, Special PP produced a chartof all confessions with the material showing corroboration andexplained how actual assault is described by accused no.3 AshokJaiswal.According to him, confessions of accused nos. 15, 10 and3 bring on record the complete chain.The two charts at Exh. 426 and 427 are explained toshow how CDR supports disclosure in the confession and alsocorroborate the presence of concerned accused persons at therelevant site.PW-35 Shekhar Palande is read out for this purpose.There were total 9 calls between accused no. 8 and 12.The last call is on 15/08/2006 i.e. the day on which accused nos.10 and 11 collected the handgun.The call showing the presenceof accused no.10 at Dagadi chawl with accused no. 6 and 7 whenhe paid Rs. 30 lacs is also pointed out with a submission thatthis position is also explained in his confession by accused no. 15Suresh Patil.The location of accused no. 12 Datta when hevisited Dagadi chawl in January, 2007 to collect Rs. 60,000/- isalso shown with the CDR.Learned Special PP submits that all thisdata has been explained to the trial court and trial court hasmentioned it in its judgment elaborately.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::71 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe charts have also been submitted to that Court tofacilitate explaining the CDR.It is stated that this CDR has beencollected in 2009 and it validates the fact or information whichhas surfaced in the respective confessions.State of Maharashtra, 2014 ALL MR Crime 2011, 2013 (1)Crimes 254 and AIR 1999 SC 1744--Syed Hakkim vs. State arerelied upon additionally for this purpose.Some miscellaneous interim applications are stillpending.However, our attention has not been drawn to any of it& no arguments have been advanced about any such interimprayer.Consideration of arguments on further investigation canbegin with the evaluation of rival contentions on need of an orderunder S. 173(8) CrPC or otherwise, after event of attempteddacoity dated 26.4.2008 as Sakinaka police had alreadycompleted the investigation into the murder dated 2.3.2007 & alsofled charge-sheet.Ex. 416 is permission dated 29.4.2008 by the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 72 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docDy.Police Commissioner for further investigation & it is not by theinvestigating ofcer of crime dtaed 2.3.2007 at Sakinaka policeStation.Investigation after Ex.416 is not by this investigatingofcer.We have to revert back this little later.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Investigation Agency & ors.is the judgment of learned SingleJudge of this Court which deals with Section 25 of MaharashtraControl of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, Section 173(8) & S.309 ofCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Section 6(1), 6(5) of NationalInvestigation Agency Act, 2008 .Issue regarding furtherinvestigation arose in said matter after transfer of Malegaon Blastinvestigation to NIA.Ofences under MCOC Act were initially investigatedby ATS and charge-sheet came to be fled.Subsequently NIA tookover investigation after a FIR was registered.Application fled u/s21(7) of MCOC Act by NIA for interrogation of the petitioners wasallowed & their police custody was permitted for 8 days.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::The application fordischarge fled by the accused persons on the strength of theclosure report fled by CBI was rejected by the trial court on13-2-2009 on the ground that it had to examine the entire recordincluding the report fled by Delhi Police under Section 173(2) ofthe Code.The High Court, however, took the contrary view that itwas only the closure report fled by CBI which could be taken intoconsideration, and then the matter would proceed in accordancewith law.The High Court had relied upon the judgment of thisCourt in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala to say that once ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 75 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docinvestigation was transferred to CBI, it only had to proceed withthe investigation and not the Special Cell of Delhi Police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::It appears, the trial court may have three options: frstly, it may accept the application of the accused for discharge; secondly, it may direct that the trial may proceed further in accordance with law; and thirdly, if it is ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 76 Judg.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Moreover, the competent IO has investigated & it leadto exoneration of persons earlier charged as assailants due to theiridentifcation by Mrs. Shah & Mayur in TIP.In that TIP PW-1 widowKomal, PW-7 Manali & hotel owner PW-12 had not participated.Mrs. Shah & Mayur had only seen those persons in the vicinity ¬ while committing ofence.Murder dated ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 80 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc2.3.2007 does not remain an ofence under S. 302 IPC only but itbecomes an organized crime under MCOCA, as is being discussedlittle later in the body of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::The State of Jharkhand andOrs.Appeals were fled against judgment of High Courtdismissing Writ Petition under Section 482 of CrPC fled byAppellant.Questions raised were - (1) Whether in a case where anAccused had been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case,subsequently new ofences were added, was it necessary that bailearlier granted should be cancelled for taking accused in custody?(2) Whether re-registration of F.I.R. was a second F.I.R. and was notpermissible there being already a FIR registered arising out ofsame incident? (3) Whether N.I.A. could conduct any furtherinvestigation in matter, when investigation in the P.S. Case havingalready been completed and charge sheet submitted of whichcognizance had already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate?(4) Whether order passed by Judicial Commissioner-cum-SpecialJudge, NIA, Ranchi remanding Appellant to judicial custody was in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 81 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccordance with law? and (5) Whether power under Section 167 ofCrPC could have been exercised in case, where cognizance wasalready taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11th March, 2016 oraccused could have been remanded only under Section 309(2)?::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Facts there reveal that FIR was lodged for ofencesunder Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) read with Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act andSection 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act whereinapart from appellant there were 11 other accused.The allegationsmade against the accused were that, petitioner by showing fear ofextremist TPC Group recovered levy from the contractors,transporters and coal businessman.On information received froma co-accused, a search was conducted in his house and anamount of Rs. 57,57,510/ was recovered from the bag alongwithfour mobiles.No satisfactory explanation was given by theappellant.Thereafter, on the prayer made by the investigatingofcer, ofences (scheduled ofences) under Sections 16, 17, 20and 23 of the Act, 1967 were added against the accused.CentralGovernment issued an order in exercise of power conferred underSub-section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NationalInvestigation Agency Act, 2008 suo-moto directing the National ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 82 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docInvestigation Agency to take up investigation of said F.I.R. in whichSections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of Act, 1967 were added.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::A Writ Petition was fled by the appellant praying forquashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection withSpecial NIA Case including the First Information Report with furtherprayer for quashing the order remanding the appellant to thejudicial custody by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge,NIA.The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed both theWrit Petitions & aggrieved, against said judgment, appeals werefled by the appellant.While dismissing the appeals, the Hon.Apex Courtholds that in facts before it, the investigating agency itself hadnot taken into custody the appellant after addition of new ofencesrather accused was produced in the Court in pursuance ofproduction warrant obtained & it was not necessary for the SpecialJudge to pass an order cancelling the bail granted to the appellantbefore permitting the accused appellant to be produced before itor remanding him to the judicial custody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::83 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docReiterating the settled proposition that, second FIRwith regard to same ofences is barred, Apex Court fnds that FIRdated 16th February, 2018 registered by NIA, can not be said to besecond FIR.NIA Act, 2008 was enacted to constitute aninvestigation agency at the national level to investigate andprosecute ofences afecting the sovereignty, security andintegrity of India, security of State, other international matters asspecifed and for matters connected therewith or incidentalthereto.Incase before the Hon.Apex Court, charges were framed on 19thSeptember, 2016, ofences under Act, 1967 were added for thefrst time on 09.04.2017; thus, there was no occasion forinvestigation of ofences under Act, 1967 prior to April, 2017.When the Central Government directed the NIA to investigate thescheduled ofences, NIA was fully competent to investigate thoseofences and submit a supplementary report.It was not a casewhere charge/s for ofences punishable under the Unlawful ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 84 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docActivities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were available prior to April,2017.When order was issued by Central Government on 13thFebruary, 2018, it was not competent for the State Police toproceed with the investigation.FIR re-registered by NIA on 16thFebruary, 2018 was not a second FIR for the ofences, rather it wasre-registration of the FIR to give efect to the provisions of the NIAAct, re-registration being only a procedural step to initiate theinvestigation and the trial under the NIA Act. Such re-registrationof the FIR, thus, was neither barred nor could it be held to be asecond FIR.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage.Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature.If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an ofence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered inPradeep Ram Vs.S. 24 prescribes a punishment of either description up to 3years and fne for a public servant who helps or supports theorganized crime or fails to discharge his duties in relation to anorganized crime.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdacoity dated 26.4.2008 or exercise undertaken thereafter.Theofence of murder which took place on 2.3.2007 could never haveconstituted an organized crime had the investigation in attempteddacoity on 26.4.2008 not progressed.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMCOCA.There was no dispute that the very frst charge-sheet in Parbhanias against A-1 was fled on 7-9-2006 before the Chief JudicialMagistrate.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::However it denied the same to A-7 observingthat by virtue of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, he was not entitled forthe grant of bail and he did not fall within the excepted categorystipulated in clause (a) or (b) of the said sub-section (4) of Section::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::In paragraph 90, the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::The ofencealleged to be the organized crime here is on 2.3.2007 while earliercharge-sheets are not in dispute.PW-33-Shri Shelke is theinvestigating ofcer of Crime Branch prior to invocation of MCOCA.He has stated that till 8/5/2008 he did not reach to the conclusionabout any organized crime committed by the members of ArunGawali's gang.PW-33 has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 105 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbeen cross-examined at length but no material to discard histestimony could be brought on record.Theseofcers entered the witness box & have been cross-examined.Vagueattempt to assail order dated 20.5.2008 therefore can notsucceed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::It will be appropriate to refer to other judgments citedbefore us.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::3(6) - The confession recorded under sub-rule (5) shall, if it is in writing, be signed by the person who has made such confession and by the Police Officer, who has recorded the said confession.Such::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 ::: 109 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc Police Officer shall, under his own hand, also make a memorandum at the end of the confession to the following effect :-::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc in connection with which, or relating to which, such confession has been made, for the purpose of investigation."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Similarly Cr.Appeal 410/11-- Manoj GawadeThe appellants have only placedcopy of this judgment on record without pointing out its relevance.AIR 1952 SC 159- Kashmira Singh v. State of MP,pointing out when & to what extent the confession of a co-accusedcan be used need not be gone into in present matter where wehave the recent judgments directly under the MCOCA.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe learned single Judge, therefore, held as corollary that the act of the Special Judge allowing the eyewitness of a murder case to be examined in MCOC Act trial, without there being a joint trial of both the ofences, will have to be quashed and that the said witness shall not be further examined in MCOC Act case, and that the case should be tried as if the said witness was never examined at MCOC Act trial.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:49 :::Had the term "continuing unlawful activity" been synonymous with "organised crime", it would not have been necessary for the Legislature to include two defnitions.It would have been sufcient to provide for only one defnition of continuing unlawful activity and make that activity punishable.116 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThe question whether said murderconstitutes an organized crime also can be convenientlyconsidered along with it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::117 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docWe intend to consider the merits of the narration inthese confessions frst to ascertain whether the same nail anyaccused.Thereafter, the contentions on procedure followed whilerecording it or retraction thereof will be examined.Confessions need evaluation in the backdrop of lawconsidered supra & keeping in mind the fact that circumstancesdisclosed therein throw light on CULA & murder.We fnd it appropriate to begin with Part II statement ofaccd.10 Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav.PW-19 Dnyaneshwar Phadtarehas recorded it at Ex. 251 and this accused has admitted thisconfessional statement before the learned CMM when he wasproduced before him immediately.Ajit & Pratap extortedhuge ransum from builders or traders and part of it was sent toaccd.1 Arun Gawali through accd.9 Sandip & accd.15 SureshPatil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::After few days, when accd.10 Babu went to ofce atHotel Milan Complex, Building no. 6/5, Ajit Rane & Pratap Godseshowed him said gun & two cartridges stating that they had fred around each.Shrikrishna @ Babu also states that through thisofce, the afairs & working of ABS were managed.In October, 2006 trial of one Solanki who had attackedaccused 12 Pratap started in Shiwadi court.He, accd.Pratap, PW-5Pradeep, accd.11 Dinesh & Mohd. Arif @ Addu carried out groundwork (felding) and attended that court on 2 to 3 occasions to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 121 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docattack Solanki.Their plan could not succeed as Solanki did notturn up & did not attend the court on those dates.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::10 Shrikrishna.Vijay then gave 9224676768 & 9323709336as his mobile numbers to accd.10 Shrikrishna.When Shrikrishnainquired, Pratap for the frst time disclosed to accd.10Shrikrishna that he had a contract to kill Shivsena corporatorKamalakar Jamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::On next day Vijay telephoned Shrikrishna in themorning to inform that the ofce was closed.Shrikrishna thenobtained key from house of Ajit Rane.He then handed over thebag with articles & Rs. 10,000/ to Vijay.He told them to come inthe evening to collect motorcycle.Narendra alone came & asdirected by Pratap, Shrikrishna handed over the Discoverymotorcycle to him.He called Viajay & his colleagues again nextday morning in the ofce as per Pratap's instructions.All 4 then came to ofce on next day in the morning &shortly, Pratap & Ajit also arrived.PW-4 Addu also came asdirected by Pratap.Pratap told them that Addu would show tothem the man & his residence.Anil, Narendra & Addu then left onmotorcycle.At that time Pratap told Vijay to collect bag witharticles everyday in the morning & then deliver it back in the ofce ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 124 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docin evening, if the work could not be done.Narendra & Anilreturned shortly & then they all left.From next day, every morninghe used to fetch key from house of Ajit Rane, open ofce,handover the weapon bag to Vijay.Vijay & others used to return inthe afternoon to return the weapons & used to go back to theirhouses.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Accordingly, for 15 days Vijay, Anil, Narendra & Ashokwere looking for Kamalakar Jamsandekar with a view to kill himand return back as he was not being found.Shrikrishna informed this to Pratap who askedShrikrishna not to collect the motorcycle for few days.Accordingly,Shrikrishna did not go to collect the motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::125 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc178. 8 to 10 days after the incident, police arrested Ajit Rane& Pratap Godse for the murder.Anita Ghaywat then called him &told him to throw his mobile in gutter.He broke the mobile & threwit in Nallah on Powai road.Vijay Giri & Narendra used to contacthim to demand the balance amount.However he started avoidingthem as Ajit & Pratap were arrested.In July,2007 on say of Dinesh Narkar (accd. 11), hehimself, Dinesh Narkar, Pintu & Guddu forced entry in the ofce ofone builder at Dadar.Dinesh Narkar damaged the ofce & beatone employee therein with hands.He aimed revolver with him atthe head & threatened to kill.He gave message to builder NanduNaik to come to Dagadi Chawl.In October,2007 Ajit Rane & inOctober,2007, Pratap Rane came out on bail in crime of murder of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 126 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar Jamsandekar.They started sitting in ofce of AmitTravels at shop no. 4, Crystal Court, Rambag, Powai.Shrikrishnawent to meet them & then, Pratap told him that after coming out,he gradually collected Rs. 10,000/ and had paid it to Vijay.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docboy shortly arrived in that ofce.Pratap introduced him as Addu &told that Addu would show the man & his residence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::On say of Vijay, he (Narendra), Anil & Addu went onbike of Babu Gurav to Asalpha Village, Ghatkoper.Anil then demanded money fromVijay.Vijay refused & angered, Anil left.Vijay fred the bullet in the head of thatman.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::They met Babu Gurav there.Shortly, Ashok Jaiswar alsoreached there.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnext day at 10.00 am.Next day Babu Gurav opened the ofce &showed to them a bag containing a gun, 2 rounds & knives.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Next day at 9.30 am.they reached Amit Travels.Inofce, Babu took out the bag from a table drawer & gave it to himwith Rs. 10,000/. Babu asked them to come in the evening to takethe bike ie motorcycle.They then returned home.In the evening,Narendra returned & took Discover motorcycle M.S. 03 AE 2476 inhis custody.On next day as asked by Vijay, he took Anil on bike &they went to ofce.Vijay & Ashok also reached there.PW-4 Addushortly arrived in that ofce.On say of Vijay, he (Narendra), Anil &Addu went on bike of Babu Gurav Asalpha Village, Ghatkoper.Addu then had shown them that man.We have mentioned supra the two confessions and alsothe mutual corroboration therein.In the light of this application ofmind it will be proper to look into other confessions.Perusal of confessional statement of accused No.9Sandeep Gangan shows that he is resident of Dagdi chawl sincehis birth.He pointed out connection between accused No.1-ArunGawali and accused No.12-Pratap Godse and accused 11 Ajit Rane.His statement does not contain any reference to accused Nos.2 to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 131 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc5 who actually gave efect to crime ie murder of Kamalakar.However, he has not resiled from his confession before the CMM.We therefore fnd it appropriate to note his confessional statementat this stage.PW-29 DCP Brijesh Singh has proved it before theTrial Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::He has stated that in 1997 Jitendra Dabholkar and ArunGawali formed a party by name Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS).Wemay note here that "Bhajan" means the prayers in praise of god &"kholi" means in room.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In the middle of December 2006, Ajit Rane and PratapGodse of Akhil Bhartiya Sena (ABS) came to ofce of AkhilBhartiya Sena at about 2.45 p.m. with two elderly persons.They were produced in the Courton next day and were taken out on bail.Expenditure for this bailand fees of advocate was incurred by Arun Gawali through SureshPatil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::After about 20 days he learnt about murder of ShivsenaCorporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar in Sakinaka area through papernews.Then he learnt that police caught hold of Pratap Godse andAjit Rane.When Pratap and Ajit were behind bar, mother of PratapGodse had come in the Dagdi chawl to meet Suresh Patil to getmoney for expenses.He then states that he was arrested on15/5/2008 by Crime Branch at Sion.This confessional statement shows an organization byname ABS with accused No.1 at its head.Those participating in acts of gundaism were harboured ieassisted fnancially and their families were also looked after.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::This statement shows acceptance of amount of Rs.30lakhs to eliminate Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar by accusedNo.1 and his assurance to accused Nos.6 and 7 for that purpose.Italso shows distribution of money to other persons in organizationfor getting that work done.It supports the facts disclosed byaccused 10 Babu Gurav.Nonmention of fact of grant of time toreconsider decision to confess given to him & wrong mention ofyear "2007" in his confessional statement, are therefore not thefatal defects.In the evening, Vijay gave a phone calland informed Ashok that Babu had given discovery motor cycle tothem.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In the afternoon,Pratap called Vijay on mobile of Ashok and told him that said ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 140 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docperson was to go to Bhatwadi funeral ground.At the same timeone funeral procession started in the area.They followed it toBhatwadi funeral ground but said person was not found.Thereafter on foot, theyreached near house of deceased.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe motor cycle there.Vijay called Pratap on mobile phone andinformed him that work was done.They also informed him thatmotorcycle was left infront of Masjid at Narayan Nagar.For makingthis phone call, mobile of Ashok was used.On foot they came tothe toilet.There Vijay put gun and one round back into the bagwith accused Ashok.He and Narendra also kept the knifes in thebag.Vijay entrusted that bag to Ashok and asked him to go to hishouse.Accordingly, accused No.3 Ashok returned to his house.Onnext day, after reading newspaper, he learnt that personmurdered was Kamlakar Jamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Two days after this Vijay phoned him and asked him toreach to Borivali National Park with bag.He accordingly went thereand handed over bag to Vijay.Vijay then gave him Rs.4,000/- andpromised to pay balance amount.Ashok then left that place.Vijay then called him and informed that police hadarrested Ajit & Pratap, and hence there was no chance to receivebalance amount.In December 2007, when Pratap and Ajit werereleased on bail, Pratap and Ajit refused to pay balance amount.Pratap and Ajit demanded the bag back.Vijay told them that afterthe money was received, bag and articles would be returned.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::142 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAshok also told that he was arrested on 26/4/2008 with Vijay andNarendra and weapons at Girgaon, Mumbai.Needless to mentionthat none of the Counsel have even attempted to demonstrateany inconsistency between the facts narrated in the confessions.Part II statement of accusedAnilkumar Giri also supports the facts disclosed by other accusedpersons.Heknew accused 3 Ashok also.On the next day, therehe met Vijay and Narendra.Vijay told him that they had to kill oneperson and accused Babu Gurav was to pay them Rs.2.5 lacs.Healso told them that the friend of Narendra by name Ashok waswith them.Thus he supports the story as narrated by other ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 143 Judg.He also boarded same bus and they got down at RambaugPolice Chowki, Pawai.Ashok also came there shortly and all ofthem, on foot, came to ofce of Amit Travels at 10.00 am.Thisnarration therefore, again supports the story as narrated by theothers.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Thus this narration also corroborates theversion of other accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Then he (Anil), Narendera and Addu left on same bikeand went to Asalpha village, Ghatkopar.They left their bike atAndheri- Ghatkopar link road and followed Addu on feet in Asalphavillage.Addu showed to them one house and told that the saidperson was residing in it and that he was not at home.All of them,then returned on foot to the place where the bike was parked.Half an hour thereafter, a person got down from auto and Addu ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 145 Judg.Then for the frst time Vijay told him that the names ofother two persons sitting in the ofce were Pratap Godse (accusedno.12) and Ajit Rane (accused no. 13).Thus this version also is inaccordance with the story narrated by accused Ashok or Narendra.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Anil states that for the next about 15 days, four ofthem were searching for that person and he was not to be found.Whenever Vijay used to contact Pratap or Babu on mobile, PratapGodse used to scold them on delay.During this search, theyalways parked their bike at Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Asalphavillage, in front of a country liquor bar.This again is in accordancewith the story narrated by the others.On 02/03/2007, when these four persons reached theofce to collect the weapons, Anil demanded Rs.200/- from Vijayand Vijay refused.There was quarrel between Vijay and Anil andAnil left for his home.This is again in corroboration of statementof others.In the evening, Vijay informed him on telephone atabout 5.30 pm to 6.00 pm that the work was done and Anil should ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 146 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnot move out of his house.Vijay paid him Rs. 1,000/- and told him that thebalance amount would be paid latter on.Anill then returned backto his home.This version therefore, again appearsto be in consonance with the narration of facts by the otheraccused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Arun Gawali used ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 149 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto inspect those entries.When Arun Gawali was in jail, accused no.20 Sunil Ghate managed the afairs.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::At the beginning of December 2006 Arun Gawaliinstructed him that supari (contract) to kill Shivsena CorporatorKamlakar Jamsandekar of Sakinaka was received by Pratap Godse& Ajit Rane from accused No.6 Sahebrao Bhitande and deceasedaccused No.7- Bala Surve and they were coming to Dagdi chawl.Accordingly, in second week or third week in the afternoon AjitRane and Pratap Godse came to ofce of Akhil Bhartiya Sena inGitai building.He was given a phone call to come to that ofce.Accordingly, from second foor he went to that ofce.That timecomputer operator accused No.9-Sandeep Gangan was present.Except Ajit Rane, other 5 persons came to second foor.At thattime Pratap Godse was carrying a brown colour bag.After comingto ofce at second foor, he closed door from inside.This narrationin confession statement by Suresh Patil supports disclosure byaccused No.9-Sandeep Gangan.Pratap Godse disclosed that said bag contained Rs.30Lakhs and that he was making it over bag to Arun Gawali, ArunGawali signaled him to receive it.Accordingly, he (Suresh Patil)took that bag.At that time Arun Gawali told Sahebrao and Bala ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 150 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSurve that work of Jamsandekar would be done and they shouldnot worry.After this promise Pratap Godse, Sandeep Gangan wentdown with Bala Surve.This narration also supports disclosure bySandeep Gangan.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Accused No.15 then disclosed that he kept said bag inan almirah in room.Arun Gawali told him to give money, ifdemanded by Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane for expenditure.InJanuary'2007 in frst week, upon instructions from Arun Gawali hepaid Rs.60,000/- to Pratap Godse through Sandeep Gangan.Againthis disclosure supports narration of accused No.9 SandeepGangan.Thereafter asdirected by Arun Gawali, he paid Rs.20,000/- to mother of PratapGodse.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::151 Judg.Sharif @ Guddu etc.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::They returned back to Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In August 2006, on say of Pratap Godse he and BabuGurav again went to Kharepatan and with Dhaktya to Vilaye andcontacted Panchal.Along with gun prepared by Panchal they cameto Kharepatan.He learnt that Panchal then gave some cartridgesto Babu and also a trial by fring of one round.As next dayhappened to be "dahikala" - a festival, he and Babu returned toMumbai on same day.At that time gun and cartridges were givento Babu by wrapping it in Alu leaves (a leafy vegetable with largeleaves).Dinesh says that he was aware that said gun andcartridges were then given by Babu to Pratap in Mumbai.In January 2007, Pratap Godse and Ajit Rane hadinquired with him about killing Kamlakar Jamsandekar but herefused.Thereafter Pradeep Shinde told him that Pratap Godsehad made similar inquiries with him.Dinesh advised Pradeep torefuse and accordingly Pradeep communicated his refusal toPratap.In election of Municipal Corporation in February 2007,Ajit Rane contested on ticket of Akhil Bhartiya Sena but lost and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 154 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar Jamsandekar won from that ward with huge majority.InMarch 2007, he learnt about murder of shivsena corporatorKamlakar Jamsandekar by fring bullet.He learnt that Sakinakapolice arrested Pratap Godse, Ajit Rane and others.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::This witness therefore brings on record the importantposts held by accused Pratap Godse & Ajit Rane in theorganization ABS of which accused 1 Arun Gawali was the founder& head.It also points out the ofce of accused Ajit Rane & visits ofaccused 10 Babu @ Shrikrishna to that ofce.Facts leading tosearch & procurement by Ajit & Pratap of a handgun manufacturedillegally, also supports the criminal activities of the ABS.However,the prosecution could not establish his status as a member of ABSor as a criminal assisting or facilitating the CULA of ABS.He is notprivy to murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.PW-5-Pradeep Shinde is the important witness whosupports the confessional disclosure by accused 10 Shrikrishna @Babu.Pradeep turned down the ofer of Rs.2 Lakhs and a revolvergiven by accused No.12-Pratap Godse for eliminating Kamlakar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 155 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docJamsandekar.He, in consultation with accused No.11-DineshNarkar refused it as the consideration ofered was inadequate.Healso supports the eforts to attack Shri Solanki ( a rival) in Sewreecourt and cause of its failure narrated by Shrikrishna.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::238. PW-6 Arun Kumar deposes and points out payment ofransum of Rs. 1.5 lak to the members of gang of Arun Gawali.Hesupports the confessions already referred to supra.He shows roleof accd.20 Sunil Ghate & Babu Dige in this extortion.In themonth of June 1998, frst he went to the ground-foor of thebuilding in Dagadi Chawl.One person came and took him to theground foor room of 'Geetai Building'.That person introducedhimself as Sunil Ghate (A-20).Sunil Ghate (A-20) made a demandof Rs. 5.00 Lacs per month as an extortion money as PW-6Arunkumar was doing business in that area.Sunil Ghate (A-20)told him that Daddy had asked him to make such demand.He alsothreatened PW-6 Arunkumar with dire consequences, if thedemand was not fulflled.Though he has disclosed the factsbelatedly ie after several years, that by itself can not be used todisbelieve him.Receipts of the entertainment tax, for the periodfrom 1993 to 1998 (Exh. 170 Colly.) & registration certifcate ofAshish Vision Cables for the period from 2003 to 2010 vide Ex. 172 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 156 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doclend credence to his narration.No doubt his statement under S.164 has been recorded after giving him requisite understandingabout the possible consequences, that does not mean that undercoercion, he was made to depose on stipulated lines pressurizinghim.On the contrary, it shows that he was given a fair chance toevaluate & deliberate.Payments made by himare supported by entries in diaries recovered under S. 27 ofEvidence Act from accused 15 Suresh Patil.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::PW-28 Mahesh Shah has been examined to proveextortion by Bhartiya Kamgar Sena.Mahesh is the owner of photostudio by name "Hetal Photo Studio" and he has pointed outregular payments to crime syndicate of accused No.1-Arun Gawaliover a long period.As per his deposition, he was purchasinggoods/material from one Chandrakant Shah, Secretary of All India ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 157 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPhotographic Trade and Industries Association.Mahendrasometimes stayed in America.In 2005, Chandrakant informedMahesh that Mahendra was receiving calls demanding money inthe name of accused No.1-Arun Gawali .Mahendra thereforewanted to pay Rs.2 Lakhs per month to accused No.1-Arun Gawali.Chandrakant told Mahesh that amount of Rs.2 Lakhs would bekept in photo studio of Mahesh for being paid to Arun Gawali.Accordingly, Chandrakant was keeping amount of Rs. 2 Lakhsevery month with Mahesh and person of gang of Arun Gawali usedto collect it on 4th or 5th day of every month through person namedPrabhakar.Prabhakar used to tell Mahesh that entry of paymentwould be made in diary.Mahesh went to Crime Branch in July 2008and then learnt that amount was being shown as paid by "Hetal".We need not dwell more on this witness.Though trial Court hasdiscarded his evidence in toto, the fact that payment from "Hetal"is refected in diaries seized at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh Patil is not in dispute.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Appreciation of deposition of PW-25 Vishwanath, PW-10Ankush & PW-9 Amrut is equally helpful here.This exercise needs ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 158 Judg.Prosecution relies upon it to urge that PW-25Viswanath, PW- 10 Ankush Gharkar & accd.15 Suresh Patil workedtogether & are knowing each other.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::PW-37 ACP Ashok Duraphe has proved the letter dated20.2.2009 with annextures as Ex. 461,colly.This letter is writtenby chief Secretary, Maharashtra Legislative Secretariat and thiswitness is informed that accused 1 Arun Gawali has on 28.1.2008sent a letter on his letterhead to permit entry of the staf of ABS tovisit the party ofce in Secretariat ie Mantralaya premises.ShriGawali requested the Chief Secretary to take back the old identitycards & to issue new ones to the persons named in it with theirdesignation.Accordingly the entry passes valid till 31.12.2008were issued to Suhas Vilankar- Assistant, Vishwanth Hinge- clerk(PW-25), Nilesh Ingawale- typist, Vasant Raut- Typist, AnkushGharkar- peon(PW-10), Suresh Patil- Clerk (accused 15), RajendraSandwilkar- assistant.This deposition & the documents are not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 159 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docchallenged by way of cross-examination by any of the accusedpersons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::It is in this backdrop that we have to appreciate theevidence of PW-10 Ankush Gharkar & PW-25 Vishwanth Hinge.Thereafter its impact on the confessions given by accused 9Sandip @ Sandy, accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu & accused 15Suresh Patil can be looked into.PW-25 Vishwanath Hinge, age 39 years has beenresiding in "I" building of Dagadi Chawl since his childhood.Heknows accused 1 Arun Gawali @ Daddy as one of the prominentpersonalities residing in said chawl.He also knows accused 20Sunil Ghate for the same reason.Arun Gawali resides on third foorof Geetai building while he has ofce on frst foor.Sunil Ghateresides in "F" building.This witness does not know whether SunilGhate has any other room in Dagadi Chawl.PW-25 identifed accused 1 & accused 20 in Court butstated that he did not know the other accused present in Court.He was not aware of the business of Arun Gawli or why he was putbehind the bar.He states that he does not know the other visitorsof Dagadi Chawl.He was paid for canvassing for Arun Gawali in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 160 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docelection.He denied that he was not paid for it.He has also deniedthat he did any writing work for the accused Arun Gawali.He wasasked to peruse the handwriting on each page in 12 diaries inwhich the accounts were mentioned and were recovered at theinstance of accused 15 Suresh under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. Hestated that none of the entries or pages were in his handwriting.He also deposed that there was no pressure on him while givingthe evidence in Court.However, he voluntarily stated that afterarrest of Daddy, he was summoned by police continuously for 3months in police station & was also thrashed.5 to 6 months afterthat arrest, police had taken him to the Magistrate twice forrecording his statement.Before the magistrate, because of threatsby the police, he gave the statement as directed by police.Onsecond occasion, the Judge & he were the only persons present &the judge did ask him to state whatever he wished & he was notadministered any oath.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::The trial court then declared him hostile & permittedSpecial PP Shri Thakre to cross-examine him.Sealed covercontaining his statement recorded u/S 164 CrPC by themetropolitan magistrate was then opened.Vishwanth stated thathe and the magistrate were the only persons present when his ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 161 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docstatement was recorded, the magistrate put him questions whichhe answered & the answers were recorded & then he signed it.(After he identifed his signature, this statement was given theexhibit number 308.) He was then produced before the samemagistrate on 22.7.2008 when same procedure was followed.Heaccepted that when the magistrate inquired, he told him that hewas not having any fear in the mind.Vishwanth volunteered thatpolice who had told him that they would come to knowimmediately, were then just outside the court of the Magistrate &hence, he did not complain to the magistrate.He signed eachpage of his recorded statement & initialed the corrections in Ex.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::2008 till that date to anybodyagainst the police.He stated that he was not knowing any Sada Pawle orSuresh Patil.He did not identify Sursesh Patil in Court when shown.He stated that portion mark A in his statementdated 12.7.2008 was not stated by him to police.He also statedthat he did not tell police that Suresh Patil was maintaining theaccounts of income of Arun Gawali & he was assisting Suresh insaid work.He denied to have made statement at portion "B & C".::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::162 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docHe denied to have known Motiram Mahadik, Sudhir Ghorpade andBabu Dige.He was not aware that Arun Gawali provided fnancialassistance to the families of those who were killed in policeencounter or gangwar.He denied the statement as recorded atportion "D".He could not explain why these portions "A to D"appeared in his police statement.He denied that the diaries at Art.3 were in his handwriting.He denied that police had obtained hisspecimen handwriting.According to him only signatures wereobtained.He did not complain to superior police ofcers at anytime about the treatment or threats by police .He was on cordial terms with his neighbours in DagadiChawl & subject of arrest of Arun Gawali becomes talk of DagadiChawl.He denied that Arun Gawali is dreaded gangster & peopleare afraid of him He denied that because of said fear, he was notgiving evidence.He was beaten up & asked to give thestatement against Arun Gawali.He was taken to the Metropolitan ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 163 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMagistrate against his will & he gave statement there due to fearof police and also did not complain.P.P. Shri Thakre to him duringhis cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Diaries were numbered serially as also the loose papers.Pages ofdiaries were also counted.The other formalities were done & thepanchanam was signed by PW-9 as also PW-10 Ankush.PW-9identifed all articles shown to him.PW-9 identifed accused 15Suresh & proved seizure panchanama Ex. 183A. Trial Court markedthe cell phones, 11 small diaries and other documents.We fndthat cross examination of PW-9 Amrut does not in any wayderogate from his oath & on the contrary proves his visit to theGitai building and putting various signatures as a part of exerciseof seizure, in Giatai building only.He does not state that he wasforced to sign on some other date or at some other place.Thismaterial therefore supports the confessional statement of accused15 Suresh.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Deposition of PW-10 Ankush Gharkar reveals that since8 years he was residing at room no. 11 & worked as security guard ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 167 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docfor 18 years.He has turned hostile & deposed on same lines asthat of PW-25 Vishwanath.He claims that he was not knowing anyneighbour and though he knew accused 1 Arun Gawali as M.L.A.,relations with accused 1 were not like neighbour.However he alsostates that whenever he needed some favour like schooladmission of a child, he met Arun Gawali, he assisted him inelection work and not in domestic work.He did not identifyaccused 15 Suresh but knew accused 20 Sunil Ghate as ex-corporator but was not aware who managed afairs of accused 1when he was in jail.He stated that police had asked to sign himon bunch of papers.This witness however accepted hissignature on recovery panchanama Ex. 183A relating to discoveryof the diaries and explained that police threatened & forced him tosign without reading it.But then the material looked into by usshows falsehood in his allegation of police forcing him to sign.expose PW-25, PW-10 Ankush & accused 15 Suresh.It proves that they allknow each other & worked together.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::In C.B.I. vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410, at ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 168 Judg.The order of the High Court wasunder challenge in appeals at the instance of the CBI.Inparagraph 17, the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::This precedent shows that the diaries must be shown tobe books of account & regularly maintained in the course ofbusiness.In said precedent, the issue has been addressed at thestage of framing of charge while here the issue has beenanswered after recording the evidence on merits.Though there isno separate entry about Ashish cable, entries showingconnsolidated payments by accd.20 Sunil Ghate appear in these ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 170 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdiaries.We fnd that the diaries can be relied upon to record afnding on CULA.Entries about afairs of ABS headed by accused no. 1 are seen inthese diaries discovered under S. 27 at the instance of accused 15Suresh & he had kept the same with PW-10 Ankush Gharkar.Thismaterial therefore proves beyond reasonable doubt the activitiesof ABS & accused no. 1 Arun Gawali.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::PW-4Addu @ Abdul Raheman Ashiq Ali Khan reveals that he knewPratap Godse (A-12), travel business by name 'Amit Travels' atChandivali Studio where he cleaned the vehicles.Pratap Godse(A-12) & Ajit Rane (A-13) were the partners in the said business.PW-4 Abdul Raheman knew that deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 171 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docof Shivsena was Corporator of their area.Ajit Rane (A-13)contested the election of 2007 against the deceased Kamlakar asa candidate of Akhil Bhartiya Sena.PW-4 Abdul Raheman was alsoknowing Babu Gurav (A-10) as he was the election ofcer of AjitRane (A-13).After the 2007 election, Pratap Godse (A-12) askedPW-4 Abdul Raheman whether he would do a work for him.PW-4Abdul Raheman enquired him about the nature of work and hetold him to point out Kamlakar and his residence to the personsshown by Pratap Godse (A-12).Ajit Rane (A-13) was presentduring the said talk.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Accordingly, PW-4 Abdul Raheman went there on nextday.At that time Pratap Godse (A-12), Ajit Rane (A-13), BabuGurav (A-10) and four other persons were present.One of the fourpersons was known as 'Kandi' i.e. Narendra Giri (A-4).PratapGodse (A-12) asked him to take those four persons with him andpoint out Kamlakar and his residence to them.Accused BabuGurav (A-10) gave key of the motorcycle to one of those fourpersons.Thereafter, he, Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri(A-5) went to Asalpha on the motorcycle.They stopped at onepan-stall on Link Road.Then they went towards the chawl & PW-4Abdul Raheman pointed out that chawl to them.At that time ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 172 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docKamlakar was not at his residence.Then they returned to themotor bike.After some time, Kamlakar got down from autorickshaw and PW-4 Abdul Raheman pointed him out to Kandi @Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil.PW-4 Abdul Raheman also explainedthat Kamlakar always applied "Lal tikka" ie red tilak on hisforehead.They all then returned back to the ofce of Amit Travelswhere PW-4 Abdul Raheman informed Pratap that he had shownKamlakar and his residence to Kandi (A-4) and other person.After10-15 days, PW-4 Abdul Raheman learnt that Kamlakar had beenmurdered.PW-4 identifed Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) & AnilGiri (A-5).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::During his exhaustive cross-examination, this witness &testimony has not been shaken.PW-4 Abdul Raheman was notasked to attend the TI Parade but he had ample opportunity towatch Kandi @ Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) & hence,there was no scope for any mistaken identity.He also identifed Shrikrishna @Babu Gurav (A-10).Though he was prosecuted for an ofence ofrape, he clarifed that it was a false charge and for it, he was in jailfor 35 days.Even assuming that to be so, it does not falsify his ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 173 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docevidence.This deposition supports the position emerging fromconfessional statements which we have already appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::It has been argued that pictures of KamalkarJamsandekar were available and on display in hoardings forcanvassing, in the ward as he had contested the election.Moreover, they were also to be shown his residence.The procurement of a country made handgun fromvillage Vilaye through accused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu fromaccused 8 Surendra Panchal by accused no. 12 Pratap, accused 13Ajit need not detain us since it is not an essential part of the"organized crime" under consideration.Deposition of PW-11Ramchandra Gurav & PW-8- Narendra Panchal sufcientlycorroborate the confessions under S. 18 MCOCA in this respect.Arguments that PW-11 deposed falsely that he was paid Rs.25,000/ not to depose or then delay in making complaint at Ex.188 about it or complaining to a far of police station at Kanakavaliare not material here.Next question Involved is whether there is retraction? ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::174 Judg.Accused rely upon material on record to urge that tillthen accused persons were unwilling to give any confession andafter 20/5/2008, suddenly within a period of next four weeksmaterial confession statements have been recorded.Thisaccording to them militates with its voluntary nature.They havealso urged that when after recording Part-II confession statements,they were produced before the Court, at the earliest possibleopportunity they have withdrawn the so-called confessions.They ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 175 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.dochave then complained of highhandedness and pressure.This facthas been overlooked by the Special Court.It is further submittedthat the recording authority has at the end of confession, certifedthe steps or procedure & voluntary nature of the statement andbelow such certifcate also, it should have obtained the signatureof the accused whose confession it purports to be.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::176 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo avoid confusion, we fnd it proper to considerdocumentation in this respect in case of accused No.10Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav.The Chief MetropolitanMagistrate has on 29/5/2008 addressed a communication toSpecial Judge under M.C.O.C, Act pointing out that accused No.1-Babu Gurav was produced before him by Mahim Police Station.Hehas stated that PSI of Mahim Police Station also produced letteraddressed to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate along with one sealedenvelope stating that it contained confessional statement made byaccused in Part-I and II in compliance with section 18 of MCOC Actrecorded by Shri D. N. Fadtare, Deputy Commissioner of Police,Zone V, Mumbai.Part-I of the statement is recorded on 27/5/2008 by ShriFadtare in Marathi.Name of that accused is Shrikrishna @ Babu ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 177 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTukaram Gurav & Joint Police Commissioner (Crime) BrihanMumbai had by letter dated 26/5/2008 instructed to record hisconfession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Ofcer who recorded confession ie Shri Fadtare, haswritten that PSI Naik and his team were sent out of his ofce.He,accused Shrikrishna were the only persons in his ofce.He thencalled police constable Ganesh Chabukswar and told him to closethe door and instructed him not to send anybody in unless heexpressly directed.He then decided to converse in Marathi withaccused.He disclosed his name, post and designation and alsoinformed accused that he was not connected in any way with theofence allegedly committed by him.He inquired from accusedwhether he had understood it.Accused accepted to haveunderstood it.He then explained to him that he was not in custodyof police force which had arrested him and inquired whetheraccused understood it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::178 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThen this ofcer proceeded to ask name andeducation of accused and then inquiry was made with accusedwhy he was being produced before the ofcer.Babu had answeredthat he was aware that since he had expressed desire to giveconfession, he was brought before said ofcer for recording it.Hewas then asked whether he was giving the statement.He statedthat in 2007 Shivsena Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar fromSakinaka was murdered and he was giving confession in relationto that murder.He also answered the question disclosing that hewas not threatened and was not put under any fear to give suchconfession.He was then asked whether any assurance or promisewas given to him by any police or any other person for giving suchconfession.He has answered it in negative.A specifc questionwas asked whether police or such other person had assured ofmaking him a prosecution witnesses by discharging from crime ifhe gave confession and he again answered it in negative.Nextquestion put to him pointed out that confession being made byhim could be used as evidence against him in trial and he could bepunished on its basis; whether he was aware of this and he hasanswered that he was aware of this position.He was theninformed by ofcer recording statement that if he did not giveconfession, he would not be sent to ofcer arresting him and ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 179 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docInvestigating Ofcer.Similarly it was not obligatory for him to giveconfession.He was asked whether these facts communicated tohim were understood and he has answered that he understood it.He was then put a question whether after gathering all this, hewas still willing to give confessional statement.He has alsoanswered this question in afrmative.He was asked whether hewanted his advocate or any other person to remain present whenhis confession would be recorded and he has answered thatquestion in negative.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Last question informs him that he was being given timeof 24 hours before actually recording his confession.During thatperiod he would be in custody at Mahim Police station under saidofcer.He was asked to think over again peacefully whether togive confession or not.He agreed to it.Shri Fadtare, ofcer after completing this preliminaryexercise for recording confession then has mentioned that allquestions were put to accused in Marathi and answers werewritten as per reply given by him.It was read over to him and thentime of 24 hours i.e. till 28/5/2008 was given to accused to thinkover and to make up mind.After informing this to him, he wastaken in custody by Shri Fadtare from the Crime Detection Unit, ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 180 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docSection-3 and he was informed that he was to be kept in hiscustody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::He has also put date below hissignature.In between these two signatures, round seal of ofce ofDeputy Commissioner of Police appears.After this seal, Shri Fadtare has again certifed thatquestions and answers recorded above were read out to accusedand explained to him.He was explained that it was not obligatoryfor him to give any confession.Answers are recorded as perreplies given by accused to questions.He was intimated that timeof 24 hours was given to him for thinking.He was informed that hewas in custody of Dy.Commissioner of Police, Circle 5 and wasbeing placed in custody at Mahim Police Station.No Police ofceror Investigating Ofcer was to be allowed to meet him at MahimPolice Station and orders were accordingly issued to all concerned.Direction was given that he be produced before Shri Fadtare on28/5/2008 at 19.30 hours.After mentioning this it is reiterated that ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 181 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecording commenced on 17.15 hours and was over on 18.40hours.Again there is a round seal and on its left, DeputyCommissioner of Police has placed his signature, date and seal.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Part-II statement has been recorded on 28/5/2008 byShri Fadtare only.Shri Fadtare (PW-19) after mentioning inpreamble, the events till production of accused before him ,proceeded to record Part-II statement.Shri Fadtare asked policeofcer and Investigating Ofcer to go out.He ensured that in hischamber/ofce he and accused Shrikrishna @ Babu were onlypresent and nobody could have seen them or overheard them.Heagain ascertained that accused was not under any pressure.Hethen started asking questions in Marathi and answers given byhim were again recorded as it is.By frst question he was asked whether time of 24hours given to him for deliberation was sufcient and he answeredin afrmative.He was then asked whether he needed more time tothink whether to give confession.He answered this question innegative.He was then asked whether he was still willing to giveconfession and he answered in afrmative.Question whether anypolice ofcer or investigating ofcer had come to contact himwhen he was in custody of Deputy Commissioner of Police was put ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 182 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docand he answered that question in negative.He was again pointedout that no law mandated and forced him to give such confessionand whether he was aware of it.He did answer the question inafrmative.He was then asked whether any allurement or promisewas extended to him or any threat was given to him for givingconfession and he answered in negative.He was asked whetherpolice assured him to make him a prosecution witness and todischarge him from the ofence if he gave such a statement.Hisanswer to this question is in negative.He was then informed thatif he gave confession, it would be reduced into writing and wouldbe used as evidence in Court and he could be punished on itsbasis.He answered that he was aware of this position.Thequestion whether he needed any relative or advocate to remainpresent while the statement was being recorded, and again heanswered it in negative.He was asked why he wanted to giveconfessional statement.He answered that as he was repentinghe wanted to give confession statement.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::After these questions-answers, DeputyCommissioner of Police Shri Fadtare has recorded his satisfactionthat after hearing answers given by accused to his questions andafter watching accused, he felt assured and satisfed that accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 183 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwas giving confession statement voluntarily without any pressurefrom anybody.Therefore he decided to record his confession andexplained to accused whatever accused would disclose would betaken down in writing and then Shri Fadtare has mentioned that hestarted recording the confession statement.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Thereafter, DCP PW-19 Shri Phadatare has recorded theconfession statement in Part -II.At the end of such confessionstatement it is recorded that said statement was read by accusedand he found that it was correctly recorded.Hence, he has placedhis signature upon it.Recording of this confession statementcommenced at 19.40 hours on 28/5/2008 and continued upto22.30 hours.On lefthand side, Shri Phadtare has signed with date and designation andin between these two signatures there is round seal of Ofce ofDeputy Commissioner of Police.At the end after these signatures there is certifcatewhich mentions that it is as per section 18 of MCOC Act. In thiscertifcate proved as Ex. 251-B, fact that accused was a suspectunder MCOC ofence and was produced for recording confessionon 28/5/2008 fnds mention.Certifcate then records the move of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 184 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecording authority to explain the position to accused pointing outthat it was not mandatory for him to give such confession.The factthat said confession would be used as evidence against him waspointed out to accused.Satisfaction that the confession wasvoluntarily given is also recorded.It is mentioned that whilerecording confession statement except accused No.10 Babunobody else was present with Deputy Commissioner of Police.It isalso recorded that confession was recorded in handwriting ofDeputy Commissioner of police as per say of accused.It was givento accused for reading, who read it.As it was recorded as per hissay and it was correct and true, accused also told accordingly andthen placed his signature.On right hand side of this certifcate there issignature, name and designation of Shri Phadtare.On left handside of this signature there is round seal of ofce of DeputyCommissioner of Police.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Thisofcer recorded part -I statement on 28.5.2008 and at its end , ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 185 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthere is similar certifcate.Shri Choube has however on 29.5.2008also after this certifcate mentioned that he then drafted a letter tothe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai informing him about it& forwarded the accused & confession in sealed envelop withBandra police to that Court.The accused was to be taken in veil &it appears that on 28.5.2008, he instructed that police to escortthe accused & to produce him in veil only.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Procedure followed by PW-29 D.C.P. Brijesh Sinh, Zone -1, Mumbai is same as that of Shri Phadtare.The date at the top ofEx. 324 & 324-A mentioned as "27/05/2007" is an obvious errorsince other dates & developments mentioned below are of year2008 & accused Sandip was arrested on 15.5.2008 only.Accused Sandipwas produced before the CMM on 29.5.2008 where his confessionwas read out to him & he has accepted the same to be correct.278. PW-23 Vijay Singh Jadhav, D.C.P. (HQ-1) has recordedthe confession of accused no. 5 Anil Giri & it appears that accusedwas produced before him in veil only.Shri Jadhav hasfollowed the same procedure as that of Shri Fadtare.However he ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 186 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecords that the accused was sent in veil to enable him to ponderin next 24 hours over the decision to give the confession.Hisstatement is recorded on computer and for that purpose computeroperator Smt. Patil was the only third person present during therecording.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Suresh thus got time of 45 hours to deliberate & heaccepted the same to be enough.DCP Shri Y.P. Dhum, Port Zone, Mumbai-PW-20, hasrecorded the confession of accused no. 11 Dinesh Narkar on4.6.2008 & 5.6.2008 on computer.Procedure followed by him issame.PW-15 DCP Shri Rajendra Dabhade of LA-2Bruhnmumbai has recorded the confession of accused Narendra @Kandi on 4.6.2008 & 5.6.2008 on computer.This ofcer has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 187 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docadopted the same procedure & certifcate issued by him is onsame lines.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::It is important to note what these 7 accused have donewhen they were produced before the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Esplanade,Mumbai.They are all produced before thesame learned CMM.On 29.5.2008, Babu @ Shrikrishna Gurav has stated atEx. 259 that he gave his statement before Shri Fadtare after fullythinking & told him whatever was known to him.All details weredisclosed by him & in court, he did not want to add anything more.He was married & has two sons who were staying with him, Hewas working as auto-driver.He was repenting about whateverhappened & wanted to free himself from wrong done.Hence, hedisclosed everything.He has thus stood by the confessionalstatement.On 29.5.2008 itself, as per Ex. 325 accused SandipGangan was also produced before the CMM & he also accepted thestatement read out to him to be correct.He disclosed that he iseducated upto 12th standard & Marathi is his mother tongue.He ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 188 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdid not wish to say anything more.This accused therefore hasaccepted his confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::As per Ex. 231 on 30.5.208 before the CMM theconfession was read out to Accused Ashok Jaiswar who thenstated that he was visiting Mulund & Bhandup area with Narendra.Narendra had given to him Rs. 4000/ as loan.He was a carpenternot knowing anything about the murder.As his parents were to goto Gorakhpur, he had borrowed that money & he was to return it.His statement was recorded in presence of Shri Choubey &whatever was read out to him, was incorrect.He did not give anysuch statement to Shri Choubey.His signature only was obtainedon said statement.He knew Narendra since childhood.He wasarrested from his home at Bhandup & he was not aware of any"SAMAN".Accused Dinesh @ Dinya Narkar was produced with hisconfession on 5.6.2008 before the CMM.Ex. 271 shows that hehas stated that he has no relation with the ofence & did not knowanything about it.He did not tell anything before DCP & only hissignatures were obtained on papers already written.He did not ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 189 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docstate anything on lines read out to him as part I & II.He did notcommit any ofence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::He didnot know anything about the crime & he did not commit anyofence.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::190 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docHe stated that he wasresiding in Dagadi Chawl with his parents since birth.His elderbrother is a taxi-driver while younger brother worked in ICICI bank.His father worked in Kahtau mills & mother is a house wife.A 10 ft.X 12 ft.Room belonged to them.He himself is a mathadi workerearning Rs. 2500/ to Rs. 3000/ pm.He then states that whateverwas read out & told to him about the ofence, he was not knowinganything.Henever had any fnancial dealing with Arun Gawali gang.He neverworked with Sunil Ghate & he never entrusted him the work ofwriting the accounts.He has no concern with the ofence & he wasinnocent.These separate reports of CMM therefore show thataccused 10 Shrikrishna & accused 9 Sandip Gangan did not retractfrom their confessional statements but stood by it.5 others,though have retracted; they do not point out any pressure ortorture or allurement or other promise made to induce them to go ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 191 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docto the ofce of DCP.Accused Suresh, Dinesh, Narendra, Ashok orAnil do not state at the earliest possible opportunity that undersome threat or coercion, they were forced to state lies.They donot point out the specifc or particular threat or coercion None ofthem explains why they signed on papers already written and didnot protest.They do not say that part I & part II of their respectivestatements were recorded on same day ie they were not producedon second occasion before the concerned DCP.None of themalso states that they were not placed in neutral or safe custodywhen time of 24 hours or more was given to them to re-think overtheir decision to give confession & to make up their mind.Theyalso do not point out any attempt by the investigating ofcer tocontact them while they were placed in the neutral custody.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::Contention that fact of their actual placement in thecustody of some body other than the investigating ofcer is notproved by producing the supporting documents like station diariesdoes not appeal to us here.The accused could have made thatgrievance before the CMM & they have not even whispered a thingon these lines.The respective DCPs who are the responsible highlyplaced ofcers have vouched for it.Similarly the argument thatrespective DCPs should have obtained the signature of confessing ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 192 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused at the end of certifcate appended after part-II statementsalso, is misconceived.The contents of this certifcate are alreadymentioned by us supra.No legal provision has been shown to us tosupport this argument.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::It has also come out in the said confessional statement (of Accused 5) that out of the two pistols one was not in order and so the same was returned to Accused 1 and that on 5-3-1999 Accused 5 called Accused 1 who informed him that he (Accused 1) has spoken to Chhota Shakeel over the phone and informed him about the incident on the previous day."Accused 5 has also stated in his confessional statement that Accused 1 informed him that Chhota Shakeel had asked Accused 1 to pay Accused 5 some money.Thereupon, Accused 1 paid Rs.20,000 to Accused 5 at Vakola ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 ::: 194 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc and Accused 5 and 6 together informed Accused 1 that they were going to Kolkata."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::The High Court disbelieved the aforesaid confessional statements of Accused 5 and 6 on the ground that the said confessional statements were inadmissible in evidence thereby it reversed the fndings of the trial court.The High Court came to the aforesaid conclusion on the basis that there is no evidence to show that any preliminary warning was given prior to the recording of the confessional statements and that in the absence of proof of the fact that a warning was given prior to the recording of the confessional statements, the same were inadmissible in evidence.We, therefore, hold Accused 1 guilty of all the charges which were already found to be proved and established by the trial court and afrmed by the High Court.So far as the sentence is concerned we, however, uphold and confrm the sentence passed by the High Court and also restore the punishment awarded by the trial court under Section 212 read with Section 52-A read with Section 120-B IPC."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:50 :::None of the learned Counsel for accused have evenurged any inconsistency inter-se between these confessions.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docvoluntarily made did shift to accused Suresh, Dinesh, Narendra,Anil & Ashok.They have failed to discharge it.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::203 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docTo us, it is equally important to note that though theMCOCA trial here is for organized crime dated 2.3.2007, the othercharges are also there.The confessions not relating to murder, butabout CULA are also admissible here.We may add that the prosecution has examined in all37 witnesses.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docaccused No.11-Dinesh Narkar refused the ofer as theconsideration ofered was inadequate), PW-6-Arun Kumar Singh isthe cable operator and a victim of extortion by members of theorganized crime syndicate headed by accused No.1-Arun Gawali @Daddy operating from Dagadi chawl, Byculla.PW-7-Manali Chavan/Hire is the complainant and eye witness whoidentifed the assailants viz. accused No.2-Vijay Giri and accusedNo.4-Narendra Giri in test identifcation parade held by PW-24-SEO Dattaram Kambli as well as in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::PW-8- Narendra Panchal is the brother of accused No.8-Surendra Panchal who talks about accused No.8 SurendraPanchal's business of repairing and dealing in arms; PW-9-AmrutPatil is panch witness on recovery of diaries containing theaccounts details of organized crime syndicate of Arun Gawalirecovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance ofaccused No.15-Suresh Patil from the house of PW-10-AnkushGharkar; PW-10-Ankush Gharkar is a resident of Dagadi chawl fromwhose house the diaries of the accounts of organized crimesyndicate were recovered at the instance of accused No.15-Suresh ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 205 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docPatil.He is a hostile witness.It is proved by prosecution that hehad entry pass to Mantralaya.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::PW-7 Manali did not become available to him for TIP andsketch of accused persons drawn by him was not shown to PW-7 orSmt.Shah or Mayuresh Tandel; PW-11-Ramchandra @ DhaktyaGurav is a relative of accused No.10-Shrikrushna @ Babu Guravwho arranged for the weapon used in the crime (Article 5) fromaccused No.8-Surendra Panchal at Rajapur at the instance ofaccused No.12-Pratap Godse and is the witness who identifesaccused No.12-Pratap Godse, accused No.13-Ajit Rane, accusedNo.8-Surendra Panchal, accused No.10-Babu Gurav and accusedNo.11-Dinesh Narkar in the Court; PW-12-Motilal Chaudhary is theowner of Kamla Aahar Gruh at Asalfa Village near the residence ofdeceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar who identifes accused No.2-VijayKumar Giri, accused No.3-Ashok Kumar Jaiswar, accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri as the persons who usedto come to his hotel during February 2007 till murder ofKamalakar Jamsandekar on 2.3.2007; PW-13-Shridhar Munj is thewitness who proved CA report regarding handgun ie weapon usedin the commission of murder as also scarbutt (Article 1) to be part ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 206 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docof said handgun (article 5).PW-14-Anjali Badade is the witnesswho examined and opined that the scarbutt (Article 1) matchesand fts exactly with the Handgun (Article 5), PW-15-RajendraDabhade is the DCP who recorded voluntary confession statementof accused No.4-Narendra Giri (Exhibit 214); PW-16- SadanandRasam is the witness who fled the previous two charge-sheetsagainst accused No.1-Arun Gawali in the year 2004( Exhibits 218and 219) which are considered as previous chargesheets forinvocation of MCOCA; PW-17-Vinoy Kumar Choubey is the DCP whorecorded voluntary confessional statement of accused No.3-AshokJaiswar (Exhibit 227); PW-18-Dilip Sawant is the DCP who recordedvoluntary confessional statement of accused No.15-Suresh Patil(Exhibit 241); PW-19-Dyaneshwar Phadtare is the DCP whorecorded voluntary confessional statement of accused No.10-BabuGurav (Exhibit 251); PW-20-Yadav Dhum is the DCP who recordedvoluntarily confessional statement of accused No.11- DineshNarkar (Exhibit 264); PW-21-Motiram Kasar is the investigatingofcer of Sakinaka Police station who drew the panchanama ofscene of ofence (Exhibit 165) recovered scarbutt (article 1) andobtained the photographs (Exhibit 163 colly.) of the scene ofofence and fled the initial chargesheet against seven accusedpersons; PW-22-Dr.Bansude is the medical ofcer who performed ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 207 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe post mortem on the dead body of Kamlakar Jamsandekar andwho simultaneously took the photographs (Exhibit 282 colly.); PW-23-Vijay Jadhav is the DCP who recorded voluntary confessionalstatement of accused No.5-Anil Giri (Exhibit 289) and alsoaccorded sanction under the Arms Act (Exhibit 297).::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::PW-26-Asnish Shukla is a panch witness to therecovery of handgun without scarbutt (article 5) and other articlesfrom the possession of accused No.2-Vijay Giri, accused No.3-Ashok Jaiswar and accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri under panchanama (Exhibit 311); PW-27-Ajay Joshi is theofcer who arrested accused No.2-Vijay Giri, accused No.3-AshokJaiswar, accused No.4-Narendra Giri and accused No.5-Anil Giri anddrew said panchanama in which handgun without scarbutt (article ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 208 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::5) was recovered from possession of accused No.2-Vijay Giri; PW-28-Mahesh Shah is the owner of Hetal Photo Studio who used topay ransom amount to the members of organized crime syndicateheaded by accused No.1-Arun Gawali operating from Dagadichawl, Byculla, from whom the ransom was being regularlycollected by members of gang of Arun Gawali; PW-29-Brijesh Singhis the DCP who recorded voluntary confessional statement ofaccused No.9 Sandip Gangan (Exhibit 324); PW-30-Charls Daniel isthe nodal ofcer of Vodafone who produced the original customerapplication forms of mobile No.9819251750 in the name ofaccused No.10-Shrikrushna Gurav (Exhibit 408 colly.); PW-31-Ramesh Bhokare is the constable who was the member of raidingparty arresting accused No.2 to accused No.5, in which raid,handgun without scarbutt (article 5) was recovered from theperson of accused No.2-Vijaykumar Giri.This witness gave his FIR(Exhibit 314) and made station diary entry (Exhibit 316 colly.).PW-32-Arun Kirtawade is the ofcer attached toSakinaka Police Station at relevant time who recorded FIR of PW-7Manali Hire (Exhibit 177); PW-33-Diwakar Shelke is the initialinvestigating ofcer of Crime Branch before applying MCOCA.He isthe witness who sent a proposal and obtained prior approval ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 209 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(Exhibit 421); PW-34-Prashant Gorde is the witness from TataTeleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. who produced CDR which refectscommunication between accused No.2-Ashok Jaiswar, accusedNo.5-Anil Giri, accused No.8-Surendra Panchal, accused No.10-Babu Gurav, accused No.12-Pratap Godase and accused No.13-AjitRane as also their tower location at relevant time.PW-35-ShekharPalande is the nodal ofcer of Tata Teleservices who producedcompact disk (CD) containing electronic data of cell site ID addressof respective Cell ID numbers (mobile tower locations) of TataTeleservices Customers (Exhibit 436) and original customerApplication forms of accused No.12-Pratap Godase, accused No.3-Ashok and in respect of mobile No.9224770420 used by accusedNo.8-Surendra Panchal, (Exhibits 432 to 434 colly.); PW-36-HasanGafur is the Commissioner of police who accorded sanctionsunder section 23(2) of MCOCA (Exhibits 439 to 441) and PW-37-Ashok Duraphe is the main investigating ofcer.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Though not necessary in the light of above fndings onthe acceptance of confessions & corroboration, CDR is theadditional material which can be looked into to verify the truth.We are concerned with the following mobile numbers whileconsidering the call data records.These calls give credence to the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 210 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docnarration in confessional statements about the same being madeand also to the presence of the accused at the spot/place relevantfor this crime.These mobile numbers are--::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::(i) Phone no. 9223202133 is of Pratap Godse.(A-12)(ii) Phone no. 9833873756 is of Ajit Rane.(A-13)(iii) Phone no. 9819251750 is of Babu Gurav.(A-10)(iv) Phone no. 9224770420 is of Surendra Panchal (A-8).(v) Phone no. 9323709336 is of Anil Giri.(Used by A-2/5) The data of call records with tower location attempts tothrow light on respective calls made by the accused persons inrelation to procurement of the handgun & also on theirmovements prior to 02.03.2007 & thereafter.These CDR arebrought on record by PW-30 Charles Daniel of Vodafone, PW-34Prashant Gawade & PW-35 Shekhar Palande of Tata Teleservices,referred to as Tata hereafter.Most of the learned advocates for theaccused persons have not advanced any arguments to doubt theauthenticity of the entries in the CDR.Learned Counsel foraccused 2 to 5 has urged that the data relating to tower locationat Ex. 435 is produced for the frst time during the trial & its lateproduction was objected to.radius & when one tower is fully engaged, thecall automatically shifts to other available tower in said periphery.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::There isnothing to show that the data at Ex. 434 extracted from mainserver & used in trial had been or could have been interpolated inany manner.Mere possibility of accused 3 Ashok being at otherplace within said area of 5 kms.does not cast a shadow of doubtsince, the confessions mentioned supra nail him down to Asalphavillage and relevant site.We therefore fnd this objection without any merit.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::The CDR indicating location of accused No.3-AshokJaiswar and accused No.12-Pratap Godse brings on recordmovement of other accused persons also on that day.As perprosecution story Kamlakar was shot at about 16.45 hours.CallNo.11 at 16.48.17 hours from mobile No.9224676768 is made bymobile of accused No.3-Ashok Jaiswar to No.9223202133 which isof accused No.12-Pratap and it lasted for about 74 seconds.Thiscall shows the location of accused No.2-Vijay, accused No.3-Ashokand accused No.4-Narendra at Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (E).Inconfession, these persons have stated that they ran away by usingNarayan Galli, Ghatkopar and the tower location supports it.Thus,this call at Serial No.11 is made immediately after murder.Afterreceipt of that call accused No.12-Pratap at 16.50.08 hours talked ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 213 Judg.Shrikrushna had called Pratap at22.22.20 hours.These movements therefore show the truth inconfession about the route, mode and manner in which aftercommitting murder, accused persons escaped.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::In order to consider issue of continuing unlawfulactivity & organised crime, a look into CDR Ex. 427 in which ninecalls on 27.7.2006, 7.8.2006, 7.8.2006, 14.8.2006, 14.08.2006,15.8.2006 & 15.8.2006 between accused 12 Pratap & accused 8Surendra Panchal appear, becomes essential.These calls & CDRare for the period during which the handgun was procured fromPW-8 Surendra at Vilaye and Kharepatan.However when two calls are made by PW-8 Surendra to accused12 Pratap, Pratap's tower location is 19441 ie at the junction of ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 214 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGhatkoper & Andheri road.We need not dwell more on this aspectsince nobody has objected to this CDR.It supports the traveldetails in confessional statement of accused 10 Babu Gurav andaccused 9 Sandip Gangan which have not been retracted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::18.26 on 15.12.2006support this position.No efort is madeby accused no. 13 Ajit Rane to come with any defence witness orto summon the CDR showing his presence elsewhere.On thecontrary, this supports confession of the accused No.9-SandeepGangan wherein he states that Ajit Rane did not accompanyaccused 12,6 & 7 to the ofce of accused 1 Arun Gawali butstayed back.Sandip Gangan has stood by his confession.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::215 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docMoreover, this CDR also supports the disclosure by accused 15Suresh Patil which is almost on same lines.One chart prepared from Ex. 427 by learned Spl.PPshows presence of accused 12 Pratap at Dagadi Chawl on8.1.2007 when he received Rs. 60,000/ from accused 1 ArunGawali as confessed by accused 9 Sandip & accused 15 SureshPatil.Two calls made by him to accused 10 Babu also fgure in it.This amount was given to him by accused 15 Suresh uponinstructions from Arun Gawali & is paid by accused 9 SandipGangan personally to accused 12 Pratap.The tower location of accused 3 Ashok Jaiswarregarding his presence nearabout Asalfa village where deceasedKamalakar resided when he & other 3 accused were keeping aneye on Kamalakar & waiting for a chance to kill him is collectedfrom Ex. 426 & 427 respectively.There are total 50 calls reliedupon by the prosecution for this exercise.This data supports thecase of prosecution that during period from 15.2.2007 till ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 216 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc1.3.2007, accused 3 Ashok & his colleagues were moving in oraround Kamalakar in Asalpha village.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::It supports story ofpresence of Ashok, Narendra & Vijay at Asalpha on that day.17 hrs.can be seen in Ex. 426 as alsoEx.This CDR supports the confession of accused 3 AshokJaiswar.6 calls made from number of accused 5 Anil toaccused 3 Ashok on 3.3.2007 also support their confessions.Chart prepared from Ex. 426 containing the same is madeavailable by the learned Special PP.These calla show the travelundertaken by Ashok from Vikroli to Borivali(East) where he wasinvited by Vijay.Since the facts emerging from the CDRs & ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 217 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccorroboration therefrom to the respective confessional statementshas not been made the bone of contention (except to the verylimited extent noted supra), we need not delve more into theCDRs.As we have found the confessions voluntarilymade, consistent with each other & sufcient corroboration(though not necessary) in support from other material on record,the same can be used to the detriment of all participatingaccused.But then none of the confessions bring on recordknowledge with accused 2 to 5 or information to them that theywere hired by an organized crime syndicate by name AkhilBhartiya Sena or by accused no. 1 Arun Gawali or that thepayment was being made by ABS.On the contrary, the accused 2to 5 appear to be under impression that accused 10 Babu ieShrikrishna is paying them.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::There the Hon.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::It is clear that fact of payment of Rs.30.00/ Lacs bySahebrao Bhintade (A-6) and Bala Surve (A-7) to Arun Gawali (A-1)who accepted supari to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar standsestablished.The steps taken by accused 12 & 13 as also accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 220 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc10 to hire accused 2 to 5 to give efect to that design have alsobeen established.Use of ofce of Amit Travels for keepingweapons, as a meeting point, steps taken by them to achieve theirgoal & the help extended by them to accused 2 to 5 to eliminateKamlakar & payment in part therefor has also been proved.Actualexecution of said design & killing of Kamlakar has also beenproved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::It is not indispute that they were arrested on 26.4.2008 ie more than 13months & 24 days after the murder of Shri Jamsandekar.CIU ieCrime Investigation Unit (CIU) asserts that on 26.4.2008 at 1.30Pm., through an intelligence source, it learnt that 5 persons arelikely to gather to give efect to a dacoity.These accused persons have not come up with any otherplace from which or date on which they were taken in custody.It ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 221 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docis not in dispute that the competent court has convicted them forsaid ofence of attempted dacoity.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::One of the 5 personscame out & proceeded towards Praksh Gold Palace.Other 4 alsocame out of restaurant but somehow they sensed the presence ofpolice & started separating.PI Sandbhor gave signal & these 4were trapped.While taking search of accused 2 Vijay ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 222 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docGiri, the raiding party found a gun with wooden handle concealednear waist.It was loaded with live red coloured cartridge having"special 65 mm Agnisham Factory, Khadki" inscribed upon it.Word"KF 12" was embossed on its metal cap.Driving license, a badge,Nokia mobile handset cash of Rs. 70/ was also found with him.12inch knife with 7 inch blade with compass on handle & cash of Rs.40/ was found with accused 3 Ashok.A 12 inch knife with 3 inchmetal strip at the end of its handle, yellow wallet, pan cardbearing name of one Satyendralal B. Srivastav, a telephone diary,a pink attendance card, a key of motor bike and cash of Rs. 30/was found with accused 4 Narendra Giri.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Motor bike MH-03-AL 8044 on which the two accusedhad arrived & its key with accused 4 Narendra were also taken inpossession.Indacoity trial, PW-31 describing the handgun as a revolver in ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 223 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docdeposition Ex. 327 there, does not improve the situation foraccused 2 to 5 in MCOC trial.In later trial, PW-31 Bhokare hasdescribed the same article as a home made gun.Accused couldhave invited his attention to this variance (if any) & then couldhave pressed it by pointing out the that weapon in dacoity trialwas diferent.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Efort has been made to create confusion by pointingout that scarbutt was sent even before this trap on 26.4.2008 bySakinaka police by pointing out that the label on scar but is foundin the sealed packet containing the handgun received from theFSL.By said date, the Sakinaka police hadalready sent the scarbut to FSL.CIU requisitioned it from Sakinakapolice on 8.5.2008 & it was received on 10.5.2008 vide Ex. 419from the FSL in sealed condition.It appear that the handgunrecovered on 26.4.2008 was already sealed by the DCB CIU & afterreceipt of the scarbut, DCB forwarded the gun & the sealedscarbut to FSL.Thus label put by FSL while returning the scarbuttto Sakinaka police on scarbut remained as it is.FSL then carried ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 224 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docout test through PW-14 Anjali Badade to match & ft the scarbut onthe hand gun.Thus fnding of a label with date 2.3.2007 shows thatthe scarbut was recovered by the Sakinaka police on the date ofmurder of Kamalakar Jamsandekar & it strengthens theprosecution case.It implies that DCB did not open the sealedscarbutt at all.This position does not help the accused in any way.Photographs taken on spot on 2.3.2007 which show scarbutt lyingin room of Kamalakar Jamsandekar are also admitted by accusedon 18.10.2010 vide Ex.163(colly.)::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::This also proves that investigation into crime 82/2007by Sakinaka police was incomplete.There is no material to showthat Sakinaka police sent scarbut to DCB CIU on 26.4.2008 &arguments on these lines advanced by Adv.V. Sharda areunsustainable.Case 702/2008 at Shivaji Nagar, Pune was renumberedas 52 of 2008 by DCB CIU.Ex. 415 is the letter sent by DCB about Sakinaka crime ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 225 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc82 of 2007 on 28.4.2008 pointing out that the accused arrestedby it in crime 52/2008 are involved in it.Ex. 418 is the letter dated8.5.2008 pointing out the orders of Deputy Police Commissioner(Detection) dated 29.4.2008 Ex. 416 (year wrongly typed thereinas 2007) & re-registering Sakinaka ofence as 69/2008 andrequesting the scarbut for forensic analysis.In reply thereto, theSakinaka police has vide Ex. 419 dated 12.5.2008 sent the scarbutas sealed by FSL.Vide Ex.420 dated 19.5.2008, it also requisitionedhandgun seized in crime no. 66/2008 dated 26.4.2008 from CIU.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Accused 2 to 5 urge that the Sakinaka papers werecalled for by DCB CIU even before the FIR in relation to allegedattempted dacoity was registered.They rely upon Station diaryentry 18 recorded at 16.40 hrs.by Sakinaka police which showsthat papers in relation to crime 82/2007 were taken to DCB CIUwhere the same were retained.30 hrs on sameday to DCB ofce.Entry no. 26 at 15.45 hrs on 29.4.2008 recordsthat those papers were brought back to Sakinaka police.Nextentry at sr.no. 27 at 16.10 hrs reveals that the papers were madeover to DCB for further investigation.4,2008 itself.These entries ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 226 Judg.They have not urgedthat no such case was registered against Ajit Rane at Dound policestation.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::On the contrary earlier deposition of Ramesh Bhokarein Sessions Trial 482 of 2008, particularly paragraph 11 showsthat the wrapper/label of scarbutt with date 2.3.2007 was found insealed wrapper sent by FSL This wrapper containing the handgunwas opened in Court & the other sealed wrapper ie of scarbutt wasfound in that wrapper.This other wrapper carried a paperslip withdate 2.3.2007 indicating that paperslip was of the scarbutt.Thisother wrapper was marked Art. 5A. This other wrapper can not beused to create any confusion as the scarbut was not anindependent property in ST 482 /2008 but used to connect thehandgun with murder of Kamalakar and as such was afxed on thehandgun itself as its integral part.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::227 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docAccused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu was already in custodyof police in crime 118/ 08 and on 29.4.2008, prior approval toinvoke MCOCA was obtained.Trial in 118/2008 is still pending.After interrogation of accd.10, accused 6 Sahebrao & accd.On 5.5. 2008, accused8 Surendra was arrested.Exhibit 218(C.R. 77/2004) Exhibit 219 (C.R. No.189/2004), Exhibit 464(CRNo.164/2004) and Exhibit 465 (CR No.159/2005) are the fourchargesheets relevant for this purpose.The submission that onlytwo charge-sheets are exhibited or are admissible, is thereforeunsustainable.The paper label with date 2.3.2007therefore does not afect anybody prejudicially.It proves that thescarbut as received in sealed condition by Sakinaka police was, infact, forwarded as it is in MCOCA investigation to FSL.PW-26 Ashish Shukla, a passer by agreed to act aspancha on 26.4.2008 at the request of police.He is the witness /pancha on recoveries from these accused 2 to 5 at the placeopposite Vitthalwadi Mandir in at Kalbadevi Road where they wereapprehended.He has pointed out that the persons overpowered ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 228 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwere searched & from them weapons, cellphones & money wasseized.Weapon is the gun 1 foot in length & one bullet.He alsopoints out that the seized articles were sealed.Contention that the alleged intelligence as alsostation diary entry at Ex. 316 is vague and the accused werenot sent to LT marg police station in crime 118 of 2008 does nottherefore advance the case of the accused.Cross examination ofPW-31 does not dilute the stand of the prosecution at all.Fact thatthe accused were produced for the frst time in front of DCP alsodoes not mean that the prosecution has fabricated any story.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::This PW-26 Ashish Shukla, in Court has proved thatpanchanama & articles seized by the police from the 4 accusedpersons including the foot long gun with barrel recovered fromaccused 2 Vijay.Though he could not name that accused, hementioned that it was from waist of that person.He identifed thearticles seized & sealed and also signatures on paper labels.He ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 229 Judg.In Court, he could not identify these 4accused persons.PW-26's cross examination does not bring on recordany material omission or fact so as to discredit him.Fact thatearlier he had been to Crime Branch Ofce or LT Marg policestation does not disqualify him from acting as a witness.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::We are here not concerned with attempted dacoity.Thehandgun seized from accused 2 Vijay is the material piece ofevidence here.The station diary entry Ex. 316 has been made at13.45 hrs.The non mentionin Ex. 316 of carrying seals to the spot does not in any way vitiatethis recovery of handgun from accused 2 Vijay.State did examine PW-27 Ajay Joshi (API) who was partof raiding team.He caught hold of accused 5 Anil & also dictatedthe text of panchanama Ex. 311 & he also identifed Art. 5 -thegun.Sakinaka police had already charge-sheeted 7 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 230 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docpersons as accused in connection with the murder of Kamlakar &CIU was not concerned with it & had no reason to fabricate anyevidence or to add the accused to Sakinaka charge-sheet.Eventhe attempted dacoity was not perceived as an organized crimeby it.The missing scar but of Art. 5 could not then be co-relatedwith the Sakinaka crime immediately.Accused caught on spotwere not then even suspected of association in murder of ShriJamsandekar.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::PW-7- Mrs. Manali Chavan is the eye witness to incidentof murder.She got married on 15/5/2010 and at the time ofincident her maiden name was Manali Keshav Hire.She wasresiding with Komal Jamsandekar, wife of deceased as shehappened to be her maternal aunt.Twounknown persons were present near the door of room and neck ofKamlakar had leaned to one side, blood was oozing from left ear.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Police took Kamlakar toRajawadi hospital.Police recorded her statement and she learnt atspot that Kamlakar passed away.In second roundagain 14 persons were pareded and she identifed accused No.4Narendra Giri.Her cross-examination shows that during funeralprocession of Kamlakar, the people were whispering that accusedNo.6 and accused No.7 might have committed the murder.Thiswitness then has referred to accused No.6 as uncle Bhintade.Shehas further stated that after police recorded her statement, sherealized that she forgot to state some facts to police.She stated ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 232 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthat Sayali and she herself were the only persons present in houseat the time of incident.She has stated that on either side of theirroom and infront of their room there are rooms of other persons.On the right side, there is pipe line Road while on left, there is linkroad.Three rooms separated their room and pipe line road whileonly one room existed between their room and link Road.Left sidelane is narrow and only one or two persons can pass at a time.She accepted that the lane takes a turn and its width is about 3 to4 feet.She accepted that person entering the lane can not beseen from entrance of their room.She stated that when she wascleaning utensils she heard atom bomb (a fre cracker) like soundand she turned and saw two persons running away.She statedthat her statement was read over by police before she signed it.She stated that she did not tell police that when she turnedaround, she saw two unknown persons by the side of uncle.Shedenied that she did not go towards her uncle.She accepted thatshe did not tell police that one of the two had a fre arm in hishand.She accepted that while she gave description of these twopersons, she did not describe clothes worn by them.She statedthat police arrested some persons on doubt but nobody asked herto go to police station for identifcation.She denied that Sakinakapolice called her for identifcation but she did not respond. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::233 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docManali has denied that frst Sayali raised cry to help herfather and then she came out.She has further stated thatSudhakar, brother of Kamlakar resides at a distance of 100 ft.Shestated that in her statement recorded after holding TIP, she did notinform police that the accused frst identifed by her had fred onKamlakar.Witness clarifed that she told police that said suspectwas armed with fre arm.She further stated that she did notinform SEO that suspect identifed by her had fred shot.She thenpointed out letter received asking her to report at Crime BranchUnit-III for test identifcation parade.Her cross then is about proceedings of TI parade andnothing material to discredit her has come on record.She has stated that when she wasalone before second round of test identifcation parade in a room,nobody had visited that room.In later test identifcation parade,she realized that 7 persons out of 14 had a diferent look.Duringtest identifcation parade contents of her complaint were at the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 234 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docback of her mind.First suspect identifed by her in testidentifcation parade was shorter but slim while the other was ofmedium built.It appears that both accused persons i.e. accusedNo.4 Narendra Giri and accused No.2 Vijay Giri were then made tostand side by side and Trial Court noticed as also witnessaccepted that accused No.4 Narendra was taller than Vijay.Witness could not say why Vijay appeared to be 5.6 ft.in heightand she denied that he was not having a square face.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Though some arguments have been advanced on thisdiferences in height, we fnd that a slim person might haveappeared to be of more height to said witness as he was closer toher and the chair of deceased.She had a look at him and otherperson for short time and the slim body built in that situation mayhave caused that impression.This witness has not, in her policestatement initially recorded, stated that she could identify theaccused persons but nothing turns upon it.FIR initially registered and chargesheet fled bySakinaka police thereafter shows that PW-7 had lodged complaintand in fnal report accused No.13-Ajit Rane, accused No.12-PratapGodase, accused No.21-Ganesh Salvi, accused No.16-SubhashUpadhyay, accused No.18-Mohd.Saif Mohiddin Faruqi @ Bobby ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 235 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docand accused No.19- Badrealam Badruddin Faruqui were shown asaccused.Two more persons viz., Santosh @ Bablu Singh andShivprakash @ Babu Upadhyay were also accused in that charge-sheet.These two persons were not arraigned as accused inMCOCA charge-sheet and accused No.16-Subhash was discharged.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::After this charge-sheet Exhibit 275, the matter hadgone to the Trial Court having jurisdiction in relation to IPCofences.However, Manalipointed out accused persons seen by her in the house (room) ofher uncle deceased Kamlakar.Test identifcation parade dated2/6/2008 is conducted by PW-24 and nothing fruitful has been ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 236 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docbrought out in his cross examination to disbelieve either him orthe proceedings of the test identifcation parade.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::He ishotelier by profession and the room of deceased Kamlakar issituated at 5-7 minutes walk from his hotel.He has deposed thatfour unknown persons, not his regular customers used to come tohis hotel in morning for about 20 days prior to murder of deceasedKamlakar.They stopped visiting his hotel from the nextday after murder of Kamlakar.He then pointed out proceedings oftest identifcation and how he identifed initially two out of thesefour persons and then in second test identifcation parade,remaining two accused persons.Later on healso identifed other three accused persons.His cross examinationshows that he took a walk down the memory lane and afterrecollecting the facts, decided to tell it to police.He has alsodescribed accused persons in cross examination and it is not the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 237 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doccase of any accused before us that this identifcation by him ordescription given by him is incorrect.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::This witness also proved their arrest forms.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::After some information, four persons namelySubhashchandra Upadhyay, Mohd. Saif Mohiddin Faruqee @Boddy, Badre Alam Badruddin Shaikh and Santosh Rajendra Singhcame to be arrested.Certain telephone numbers were kept underobservation.Print outs of CDR were obtained.The phonenumbers of accused no. 6 Sahebrao Bhintade, accused no. 7Bala Surve, accused no. 10 Shrikrishna Gurav and several otherpersons were kept under observation.Specifc question was put tohim whether during the investigation he got any materialsufcient to arrest any of the persons and the witnesses statedthat he did not get sufcient material against other accusedpersons except accused no. 21 Salvi, accused Ajit Rane andaccused Pratap Godse.He fled chargesheet as the period of 90days was getting over.He identifed said chargesheet with thesignature of Senior P.I. Wadkar.Cross examination of PW-21-Motiram Kasar shows thearrest of accused Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salvi whowere in police custody for 15 days after their arrest on 1/7/2007, &that they were thoroughly interrogated.Santosh Singh was arrested on 12/4/2007. ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::240 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docThey were all in police custody for 15 days and thoroughlyinterrogated.He himself prepared a brief summary of case ofprosecution at last page of charge-sheet.He also states that accused No.6 Sahebrao Bhintadeand accused No.7-Bala Surve were also interrogated.He was notaware whether their statements were recorded on it.He was notaware whether statements of Shrikrishana Gurav, Madhav Zha,Nilesh Patil, Pravin Marathe, Suman Surve, Manoj Agarwal, JeevanGawali and his father Babu, Ashok Kavatekar, Prakash More,Sanjeev Singh, Jakir Ahmad and Smt. Ajara were recorded bypolice ofcers.He had interrogated Shrikrishna Gurav but he didnot record his statement as he did not fnd it necessary.He thenpointed out that while leaving police station for investigation,entries are made in station diary.He produced station diary entries (xerox copies) ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 241 Judg.He had nopersonal knowledge that investigation papers were called for byDCB CID Unit-III.He stated that papers were kept with PoliceInspector (Crimes).He was not aware that papers were receivedback in police station.He was not told by PI Crime that paperswere called for by DCB-CID Unit-III.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::About entry 26 dated 29/4/2008, he has deposed thatpapers were brought back from DCB CID ofce by Shri Salvi.EntryNo.27 revealed that those papers were again submitted to DCBCIR Unit-III ofce.He stated that papers were called back by DCBCID within an hour.Hewas not knowing whether articles submitted along with charge-sheet had been returned to police station.As regards entriesin Exhibit No.277, he stated that its contents were correct.Hedenied that when he reached to the spot deceased Kamlakar wasalready rushed to hospital.He stated that till completion of spotpanchanama, he did not go to hospital.He accepted that portionmarked "A" in Exhibit 277 was not correct.In portion marked "A"in Exhibit 277 it is recorded that Kamlakar was already taken toRajewadi hospital and when he reached Rajewadi hospital, he ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 242 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doclearnt that Kamlakar had already expired.He has then identifedphotographs taken at spot.He stated that these photographswere not submitted to Court along with charge-sheetinadvertently.His attention was invited to portion marked as "B"in Exhibit 277 which records that direction was issued toinvestigate.He accepted portion marked as Exhibit "B" to becorrect.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::His cross examination shows that portion marked as "B"in Exhibit 277 regarding taking in possession clothes of deceasedand portion marked Exhibit "E" are also shown to him.Thiswitness has stated that portion marked "C" in this document is notcorrect.He accepted that FIR Exhibit 177 does not indicate that itwas recorded at hospital.He pointed out that motive behind the murder wasascertained after making inquiry with family members ofdeceased.Family Members of deceased were reluctant to givetheir statements but he made no record about it.Widow ofdeceased, his PA and associates did not voluntarily come to policestation.When they were summoned by Police Station, they did notgive any material information about motive.However, no record ofthis fact has been made.PW-2-Neelkanth Bane and Shankar Baikar ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 243 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docwere summoned but he did not record their statements since theydid not give any useful information.He further stated that sketchof accused was prepared as per description given by Neeta Shah.However, no statement of Neeta Shah was recorded afterpreparing sketch.That sketch was shown to Mayuresh Tandel andNeeta Shah.Efort was made to show that sketch to PW-1 and PW-7 but, they did not see that sketch.No note in support of factthat though widow Komal, Sayali and Manali were asked to comefor test identifcation parade, they did not come has beenprepared.He stated that Sayali and Manali were not summoned topolice station and sketch was not shown to them as instructed byPW-1-Komal.He stated that description given by witnesses somewhat matched with physical appearance of arrested suspects.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::On 11/3/2007 for the frst time he realized thatKamlakar was murdered because of defeat of Ajit Rane incorporation election.He was not aware of police record ofquarrel between Mr. Bhanushali and deceased in 2002 elections.He was not aware whether in 2007 elections there was any bogus ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 244 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docvoting.He accepted that during investigation he found thatKamlakar liked hunting.He was not aware whether Kamlakarfrequently used to go to Konkan.He did not investigate into thetype of weapon/s with deceased for hunting.He did not fnd anyweapon or objectionable article in the search of his house.Hedenied that Ajit Rane, Pratap Godse and Ganesh Salvi werearrested in a false case.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::An association or group facing two or morechargesheets of such nature must be therefore shown at thebase as perpetrator of an organized crime.The actual criminal ieperson giving efect to crime, may not have been party to its ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 245 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docearlier unlawful activities but then he must be shown to be aperson indulging in organized crime & therefore must haveknowledge of existence of such a syndicate or its business ieCULA.This fows from requirement that the criminal hasknowledge or intention that "his crime" is a organized crime." Hiscrime" here means the organized crime for which he is beingprosecuted.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::Need of the weapon like gun &eforts made to procure it leading to the handgun are also provedby the prosecution.System of maintaining the accounts of theamount extracted, expenditure incurred & responsibility to write ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 246 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthe accounts on accused 15 Suresh & PW-25 Vishwanath hascome on record.Funds were used to purchase & run the vehicles,to pay the salaries of the staf, to assist the dependents of gangmembers in jail or injured etc. Diaries discovered under S. 27 ofthe Evidence Act show maintenance of accounts & regularbusiness as extortionist.Accused 13 Ajit Rane contested theelection of Corporation as representative of ABS, participation in &efort to disturb MTNL elections, preparations made to attackgang-rival Solanki, help of Rs. 60,000/ to family of Accd.12 Pratapare the facts also brought on record.Thus an establishment withcriminal inclination having a systematic activity & an ofce hasbeen shown.The activities included locating the possible victimsfor extortion, calling them to Bhajanachi Kholi & threatening themto agree to pay the monthly installments, charge-sheets lookedinto in approval order dated 20.05.2008 all prove an organizedcrime syndicate.This syndicate has its ofce bearers at taluka asalso ward level.This association or syndicatethus encourages & harbours its criminal members.Shri Gupte, thelearned Counsel had urged that Anita Ghaywat, sister of Ajit Ranewho used to sit in the ofce has not been examined by the ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 247 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docprosecution.We fnd that it was not necessary for the State toexamine her or to record her S. 161 CrPC statement.If theaccused so desired, nobody prevented them from examining heras defence witness.Similarly the argument that scarbutt on thespot, could have been of the gun of Kamlakar himself ismisconceived.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::As already discussed above, the knowledge of allconvicted accused persons, except accused 2 to 5; of theexistence of Akhil Bhartiya Sena and its criminal activities, stepstaken by them to further or advance the goals of ABS & theirparticipation in its afairs are all on record.However, the fact thataccused 2 to 5 had knowledge of existence of said ABS, of itsobjects & activities or fact that accused no. 2 to 5 participated inany such activity has not been proved by the prosecution.Accused 2 to 5 here go to ofce of Amit Travels and from saidofce, work of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena of Accused no. 1 is alsodone.However, the prosecution could not bring on recordknowledge to them that person to be killed was a rival corporatorKamalakar or then knowledge to them that they were eliminatingKamalakar on behalf of ABS or accused 1 Arun Gavali.Theyhave/had no knowledge that accused 1 Arun Gawali was to pay ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 248 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docthem the agreed amount or ABS was to be the benefciary of theircrime.The material on record shows that they were looking ataccused 10 Shrikrishna @ Babu as source of payment.They were"one time hired" killers to execute the supari or job accepted bythe ABS.Their contact with accused 10,12 & 13 was the frstoccasion and the contract was a one time event and as such, theprosecution has not proved that they have indulged in any CULA.The ofence of murder dated 2.3.2007 is diferent in nature orcontent for them when compared with its nature as against theother accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::The involvement of accused 1 Arun Gawali in themurder of Kamalakar Jamsandekar has been proved by theprosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Similarly fact that he isleader of organized crime syndicate and party to CULA standsestablished.Hence, his conviction can not be faulted with becauseaccused 11 has been acquitted by the Special Court.Contributionof other accused persons leading to CULA has also come on ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 ::: 250 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.docrecord.Hence, submission that PW-2-Neelkanth Bane did notbring any threat perception of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar onrecord is not decisive here.When in law, conviction is possibleonly on the strength of the confessions recorded under S. 18 of theMCOCA, in present matter, where the independent corroboration isseen, the conviction of the others by the Trial Court can not befaulted with.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 is partly allowed & part of Judgment convicting them under Section 3(1)(i) of the MCOC Act, 1999 and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.1.00 Lac each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three years, is set aside.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::251 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(3) Part of Judgment in CR.APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 convicting Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3) and Narendra Giri (A-4) for the ofence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fne of Rs.5000/- each, and in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one year, is maintained(4) Similarly Part of Judgment in CR.APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 convicting Vijay Giri (A-2), Ashokkumar Jaiswar (A-3), Narendra Giri (A-4) and Anil Giri (A-5) for the ofence under Section 302 read with Section 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life is maintained.(5) Remaining part of the common Judgment and Order dated 31st August 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, MCOC Act, Gr.Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2008 is maintained.Accordingly the conviction of all the other appellants ie accused persons & punishments inficted respectively upon them are upheld.(6) Accordingly Criminal appeals 1061 of 2012, 1066 of 2012, 1076 of 2012, 1077 of 2012, 1093 of 2012, 1094 of 2012 and 1157 of 2012 are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::252 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc(7) All pending miscellaneous criminal applications (interim applications) ie Cr.APP 144 of 2019, 1406 & 1534 of 2018 are also dismissed.(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:51 :::
|
['Section 120B 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.
|
108,687,251 |
Learned counsels for Arshad, Madhukar and Sajid assail the impugned judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offence.Nargis Begum PW-3 the mother of Naushad admits that there was enimity between her husband and Arshad's family.Nargis Begum does not support the prosecution version that the phone was taped and conversations were recorded.Further despite stating that the conversation was recorded no sample voices of the appellants were taken and sent to CFSL to match the voices in the tape-recorded conversation.The call details of the mobile phone of Dilshad Beg PW-2 father of Naushad and the phone numbers from which the calls were allegedly received have not been exhibited and deliberately so as the same would show that there were frequent calls in between the numbers and thus could not be ransom calls.The phones on which recording were done were neither seized nor sent to CFSL for analysis.Though it is alleged that the recovery of the child was made from District Motihari, Bihar, however neither the Police officers of Bihar were witnesses to recovery nor members of the raiding party.No DD entry showing that the investigating officer of Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 3 of 11 the Delhi Police had gone to Bihar has been exhibited, neither any ticket nor receipt of expenses of travel etc., have been proved to show that the investigating officer went to Patna to recover the child.The prosecution case does not inspire confidence and even taking the same as it is at best the child had gone with his cousin brother i.e. Arshad and due to enmity later he has been falsely implicated.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 3 of 11PW-4/A informing that his son Naushad aged 6 years was missing since October 17, 2004 from 5.30 PM.SI Mamur Khan PW-8 flashed messages and sent hue and cry notices.On October 22, 2004 Dilshad Beg informed that somebody had taken away their son after enticing him.Thus, on the basis of endorsement on DD No.15B FIR No. 918/2004 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar under Section 363 IPC.On the same day Dilshad Beg informed that he had received a ransom call and on the said basis Section 364A IPC was added.PW-13 Insp.Ramesh Singh deposed that he along with the staff went in search of the kidnapped child and to verify the mobile phone 9835465800 from which the ransom call was received by Dilshad.The mobile phone Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 4 of 11 was purchased in the name of one Sanjay Singh, son of late Shri R.D. Singh, resident of Gahai Dhaka, East Champaran.The ID proof of mobile was sent to Reliance Company Patna.He went to Patna and collected the photocopy of subscriber enrolment form.He came back to Delhi on November 01, 2004, however could not get any clue of the child.On November 17, 2004 the investigation of the case was transferred to Crime Branch.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 4 of 11SI Harbir Singh PW-16 who took over the investigation proved that he made a written request to the SHO Madan Prasad of Madhubani vide Ex.PW-16/A. He further deposed that on November 16, 2004 he went to the house of Dilshad Beg to made enquiries.During enquiries Dilshad Beg disclosed that his nephew namely Arshad was also missing for the last many days and had not joined in the Eid festival that year.He also informed that Arshad had written some telephone numbers on the wall behind the door situated in the house of his brother Salim.He noted numbers 9835417528 and 9835217520 and two land line numbers written on the wall.After discussion with the senior officers he went to Motihari Bihar with a team.They reached there on November 18, 2004 at 6.00 PM in vehicle no. DL 1 CJ 0516 along with driver ASI Rajender Singh.However, due to Chhath Pooja there was lot of crowd.He along with Ct.Prahlad from his team went to village Jogaharia and he asked Ct.Prahlad to talk to the local people in their own language.On enquiry it was revealed that in the house of Madhukar one child was confined.He contacted the SP Motihari and took the assistance of local Police and went to PS Madhubani where he met SHO Madan Prasad PW-14 and gave a written request Ex.PW-16/A.SHO Madan Prasad knocked the door, as it was not opened and thus the door was broken open.Before they broke the door they heard the crying of a child and when they peeped inside they saw a child inside the toilet.The child disclosed his name as Naushad Beg and his residential address.They entered the house.Madhukar opened fire at them.But the Desi Katta did not fire.Arshad and Sajid John were also present in the house.Sajid John was holding the child and was having a single barrel gun with him and Arshad a double barrel gun.SHO Madan Prasad took the child from Sajid John and handed over the custody to Dilshad and made them sit in Qualis.On search two country-made pistols and two live cartridges were recovered from the house of Madhukar.Thus, a separate case under Section 25 Arms Act was registered at PS Madhubani.Arshad, Madhukar and Sajid were arrested and brought to Delhi.Custody of child was handed over to Dilshad vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. The disclosure statements were recorded, however pursuant to the disclosure no recoveries were made.SI Harbir Singh also took two audio cassettes from Dilshad Beg regarding the conversation of threatening and ransom calls and transcript of audio cassettes were got prepared.Subsequently, Durga Singh was also arrested.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of SI Harbir Singh except that Durga Singh was not present at the place where the child was recovered.He felt sleepy.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 8 of 11As regards Kakaji @ Durga Singh is concerned, the learned Trial Court acquitted him on the ground that he was not arrested from the spot.Even otherwise the role attributed to Durga Singh is that Naushad was kept in his house for two days.Naushad has not stated about the presence of Durga Singh @ Kakaji when he was kept at the house of Madhukar nor that he threatened to kill him or that demand of money was made when he was at the house of Durga Singh @ Kakaji.It is the case of the prosecution itself that Arshad is the cousin brother of Naushad and thus the factum of his kidnapping not being known to Durga Singh @ Kakaji where he was kept for two days cannot be ruled out.1. Arshad @ Aman, Madhukar Singh and Sajid Abbas @ John assail the judgment dated October 16, 2012 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 363/364A/347/34 IPC and Madhukar Singh for offence under Section 212 IPC as well.They also challenge the impugned order dated November 27, 2012 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each for offence punishable under Section 364A/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and a fine of `3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 363/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and a fine of `5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 2 of 11 imprisonment for 3 months each for offence punishable under Section 347/34 IPC.Madhukar Singh has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 212 IPC.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 2 of 11Even the State had also sought a leave to appeal against the acquittal of Durga Singh @ Kakaji which was granted and thus the said appeal has also been heard.The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of Durga Singh of all the charges framed against him.4. Learned APP assails the judgment to the extent of acquittal of Durga Singh on the ground that merely because Durga Singh was not arrested from the spot from where the child was recovered and was arrested later on, he has been acquitted.Naushad the victim had duly identified Durga Singh as the person in whose house he was kept for two days.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.The investigation in the case was set into motion on the complaint of Dilshad Beg vide DD No.15B on October 18, 2004 Ex.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 5 of 11The raiding party along with Dilshad and local assistance of SHO PS Madhubani conducted a raid on the house of Madhukar.The house was found guarded by Sanjay Singh and Shiv Shankar.On seeing the Police party they ran away.Before proceeding with further a word needs to be recorded for the conduct of SI Mamur Khan Retd., Insp.Ramesh Singh and SI Harbir Singh.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 6 of 11Though as per the case diaries SI Mamur Khan recorded the statement of Dilshad Beg on October 22, 2004 regarding the ransom call and added 364A IPC, however when he appeared in the witness box he just stated that after registration of FIR on the next day he handed over the investigation to the Crime Branch.Even Inspector Ramesh Singh who took over the investigation made no efforts to collect the tape-recorded CDs of the ransom calls.Though SI Harbir Singh later collected the said tapes, however he made no efforts to take the voice samples of the accused and send the same for voice spectrography analysis thus resulting in the loss of valuable evidence.Pursuant to the Naushad being brought to Delhi, his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Shri Kamaljeet Arora PW-10 the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Naushad deposed before the Court in sync with his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.He stated that Arshad Bhaya came to him while he was playing in Gali No.7 and called him from the corner of the Gali.He went to him on which he asked whether he would like to go along with him.Naushad accompanied Arshad who took him to the main road where his two friends Sanjay Bhaiya and John Bhaiya were also present.He knew both of them as they had met him at the house of his uncle.John Bhaiya gave him one Frooti for drinking and Sanjay Bhaiya a tablet.While he was walking on the road Arshad held his hand.When he gained consciousness, he found himself in a running train.In the train Sanjay Bhaiya gave one more Frooti.He again gave him something to eat and he Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 7 of 11 again slept.When he gained consciousness he was at the house of Kakaji where he was kept for two days and for most of the time he was in sleeping condition.Thereafter he was kept in a locked room in the house of Madhukar Bhaiya.They used to serve him meals once in a day and make him sleep.In that room Madhukar Bhaiya, Sanjay Bhaiya, John Bhaiya and Arshad @ Aman, Shiv Shankar and 2-3 other boys used to give him beatings.They used to say if his father did not pay them money, they would kill him.They also made him talk to his father on two occasions.They used to sing vulgar songs in the room.Once they had also put a revolver on his head and said that in case his father did not fulfil their demand of money, they would kill him.At the house of Madhukar when Police came he was locked in another room and Police personnel talked to him from the window where he was locked.He informed his name and thereafter the Police took him out of the room and caught Madhukar Bhaiya, Arshad Bhaiya and John Bhaiya.His father was standing outside the house of Madhukar.He was taken to the Police Station where his statement was recorded and he was medically examined.He identified Kakaji, Arshad, Madhukar and John Bhaiya.In cross-examination this witness reiterated that Arshad was his cousin i.e. son of his Tau.He did not know that Arshad had taken loan from his father.Nothing further has been elicited from this witness.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 7 of 11From the testimony of Naushad, the factum of his kidnapping by Arshad, Sanjay and John is thus proved.Sanjay is a proclaimed offender who is not before the Court.Naushad was kept in the house of Madhukar who was an active participant with the others and from the evidence on record the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the role of appellants Arshad, Madhukar and Sajid @ John in the kidnapping for Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 8 of 11 ransom, and confinement of Naushad.No overt act is attributed to Durga Singh with regard to demand of ransom or threatening at his house.Even as per Dilshad Beg though the child was missing since October 17, 2004 the first ransom call was received on October 22, 2004 i.e. after 4 days of the kidnapping when he was not in the house of Durga Singh @ Kakaji but that of Madhukar.Though we concur with the judgment of the learned Trial Court acquitting Durga Singh but for different reasons, as noted above.The contention of learned counsels for the appellants that Bihar Police was not made a witness to the recoveries and they were not members of the raiding party is contrary to the record.PW-14 SI Madan Prasad Singh, SHO PS Madhuban, District Motihiari, Bihar and PW-15 SI Sachidanand, PS Budha Colony, Patna have appeared in the witness box.SI Madan Prasad Singh was the SHO when the raiding party reached PS Madhuban on November 19, 2004 and sought his assistance.He has deposed that besides the raiding party of the Delhi Police, SI Thithar Shah, HC Rakesh Kumar Singh and HC Mahender Pratap from his Police Station had accompanied Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 9 of 11 them on the raid.They made efforts to join public persons however, there being Chhath festival on that day none agreed to join.He has deposed in sync with SI Harbir Singh, the Investigating Officer and also proved the recovery of the child Naushad from the room of Madhukar and the arrest of Arshad @ Aman, Madhukar and Sajid Abbas @ John from the spot.He has also deposed about the fire arms recovered from the room on the basis of which FIR No.146/2004 under Sections 25/26/35 Arms Act was registered at PS Madhuban.The prosecution has also proved the request for assistance made to SHO, PS Madhuban vide Ex.PW-16/A. This witness has corroborated the version of Naushad qua the raid and recovery.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 9 of 11The contention regarding telephone record is immaterial as neither the Trial Court nor this Court is relying upon the same since neither the call details were exhibited nor the voice samples of the accused have been taken to get the same identified from the tape recorded voice.However, we express our anguish on the non-collection of the scientific evidence of voice samples which would have been got tallied through CFSL analysis from the recorded conversation.Emphasis has been laid by the learned counsels for the appellants that Nargis Begum admits enmity between the two families.Enmity is a double edged weapon which can be used both for implicating falsely and being a reason for commission of crime.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 10 of 11Thus we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting Arshad @ Aman, Madhukar Singh and Shajid Abbas @ John for the offence punishable under Sections 363/364A/347/34 IPC.Thus Crl.Appeal Nos.127/2013, 376/2013 and 504/2013 are dismissed.The sentence of imprisonment awarded is the minimum for offence punishable under Section 364A IPC.The order on sentence is also upheld.The appellants will suffer the remaining sentence.As regards Crl.Appeal No.1239/2013 filed by the State against Durga Singh @ Kaka as noted above we find no ground to convict Durga Singh and the appeal is consequently dismissed.T.C.R. be returned.Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar one for his record and the other to be handed over to the appellant.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 19, 2014 'ga' Crl.376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 11 of 11376/2013, 127/2013, 504/2013 & 1239/2013 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
108,737,695 |
..... petitioners Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ... for the petitioners Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra .... for the State Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners wish not to press this application.Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not pressed.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,259,857 |
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294 and 506-B/34 of the I.P.C. in connection with Crime No.14/2015 register at Police Station- Palera, District-Tikamgarh, M.P.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the case diary statements, in the opinion of this court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out, therefore, the bail application is hereby rejected.C. stands disposed of.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE
|
['Section 452 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.
|
45,260,772 |
Rajkumari (the deceased) wasresiding at Village Gullidand, Police Station Marwahi, with her husbandIndrajeet and two infant children.On 8th August, 2006, her husband hadgone to the house of his father at Rajnagar.Rajkumari was at herresidence with her children.On 9th August, 2006, Rajkumari had calledDhaniram, their domestic servant, to sleep in their house in the night.Itwas the day of Raksha Bandhan.Anita (PW3), Savita (PW2) and Bela Bai(PW5), neighbours of Rajkumari, visited her house to view television in thenight.At about 9 ob�clock, they went back to their houses after viewingtelevision.Ranjeet Kewat, is the brother of Indrajeet and brother-in-lawof Rajkumari.He had a house near the house of Indrajeet.Vishwanath,Amar Singh, Kamlesh and Ramnaresh, who used to reside at the house ofRanjeet came to his house, sat there for some time and then went away.Atabout 11.30 p.m., they are stated to have again come to the house ofRanjeet and consumed alcohol.Thereafter, at about 12 ob�clock in thenight, when Rajkumari had gone to sleep in her room and the servant,Dhaniram, was watching television in the verandah, the accused persons,Ranjeet, Vishwanath, Amar Singh and Ramnaresh came into the house ofRajkumari and told Dhaniram that they would have illicit relations withRajkumari and if he disclosed anything to anybody, he would be eliminated.Ramnaresh and Amar Singh sat down along with Dhaniram while Ranjeet andVishwanath went into the room of Rajkumari and committed rape on her.After committing the offence, they came out and took Dhaniram into thecourtyard.Then Ramnaresh and Amar Singh entered the room of Rajkumari.They also committed rape on her and came out after some time.Then, theaccused asked Dhaniram to go away to which he objected.Upon hisobjection, he was threatened of elimination.Thereafter, Dhaniram went tothe room of Rajkumari and saw that she was breathing heavily, was not ableto speak and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose.Dhaniram came outof the room and was again threatened by all the accused.Ranjeet asked himto go to the house of his aunt (bua), mother of Rajkumari and tell her thatRajkumari is not waking up.Before leaving, they extended the threat againand told him to act as per their directions.Dhaniram went to the house ofSugaribai, mother of Rajkumari, PW12 and narrated the incident as he wasdirected by the accused.Sugaribai asked him to stay at her house whileshe went to the house of Rajkumari.There she noticed that Rajkumari waslying dead.She called the neighbours and thereafter, the information wasgiven to Indrajeet, husband of the deceased, who came in the morning.Indrajeet visited the Police Station Marwahi and informed about the deathof Rajkumari vide Ex.The police visited the spot and took the body ofthe deceased vide Ex.P3 and also collected other materials from the placeof occurrence.Dr. Sheela Saha and Dr. Mahesh Raj conducted the postmortemof the dead body and submitted the postmortem report, Ex.P12, wherein itwas opined that death of Rajkumari had taken place due to blockage ofbreathing on account of strangulation and the act of commission of rape onher was also established.The police registered a case under Section376/302 IPC vide Ex.P16 and started its investigation.Statements of asmany as 14 witnesses were recorded by the police.Various items like bloodstained underwear and piece of yellow-coloured saree on which blood spotswere visible at various places were also seized from the place ofoccurrence and were exhibited as Ex.Slide of semen of the accusedfrom the hospital was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Thereafter, theaccused were arrested.During further investigation, clothes, shirts andunderwear of the other accused persons and the petticot and saree of thedeceased were also seized.The accused persons were not criminals.They were friends.The deceased was said to have been selected because his father was rich.Swatanter Kumar, J.The present appeals are directed against the concurrent judgments ofconviction and award of capital punishment.The Additional Sessions Judge,Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, convicted the four accused (the appellantsherein), for offences under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short b�IPCb�) and sentencedthem vide judgment and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2007 asfollows:Number of other witnesses including, PW2, Sunita, PW5, Bela Bai, and PW10, Kamlesh, turned hostile in the court.The courts are expected to examine statements of such witnesses and/or sole witness cautiously.Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the abovecontentions, it will be necessary for us to state the case of theprosecution and the evidence on record.After the medical examination of the accused,report of the FSL and recording of statements of the witnesses, the policefiled the report before the court of competent jurisdiction.The accusedwere committed to the Court of Sessions and tried in accordance with law,which resulted in their conviction, as afore-noticed.As per Ex.P12, therewere following injuries upon the person of the deceased:-b� External Injury in the neck- (A) Abrasion with scratch mark by nail present.Abrasion in number, below the angle of right mandible and sternocleidomastoideus muscles present size measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm (B) Scratch mark b� length 1b� present above mentioned area.Abrasion on the left side of Neck below the angle of mandible to mastoid process abrasion scratch mark 2 B=b� present.(C) Abrasion in the thigh 1b� x 0.5b� and 1b� x 1b� .1b� x 1b� contusion on private part on medial side of the Rt.Present on both medial aspect of thigh.ON P/V EXAMINAL Laceration plus abrasion 3 to 4b� in no. over perineum.Blood mix discharge present.P/V Ex-Uterus Anteverted normal size.b�PW1, husband of the deceased had stated in his statement underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that PW6 had nottold him as to how Rajkumari had died.In his statement, he had alsostated that he had not married Rajkumari and she was staying with him ashis mistress.He had been married earlier to a girl from village Pyari.However, he did not remember the name of the girl, as it was more than 16years ago.He further stated that the deceased Rajkumari was married toone Bhupendra, who was from the village of her father, i.e. villageKhongapani.He admitted that he had two children from Rajkumari and alsothat his relationship with Bhupendra were bitter on account of retainingRajkumari as his mistress.He also stated that he had suspected Bhupendraof committing the said crime.According to this witness, he was informedby one Mr. Ashok of the incident.He stated that Dhaniram had been servingas a servant with them for the past three years and he used to have hismeals and sleep in the verandah of the house.The broken pieces of banglesof Rajkumari were kept by Dhaniram when he cleaned the room.The other witnesses, i.e. PW2, PW5 and PW10, who had seen Ranjeet andthe other accused assembling outside the house of Rajkumari had beendeclared hostile during their examination before the court by theprosecutor.These witnesses, however, had admitted that they hadacquaintance with the accused persons as well as with the deceasedRajkumari.PW5, Bela Bai stated that she had gone to watch television inthe house of Rajkumari along with Anita and Savita and nobody else wasthere.It was at that stage that the witness was declared hostile and shedenied the suggestion that she had seen the accused persons.This witnessand all other witnesses live in and around the house of Rajkumari.PW6 who is the main witness of the prosecution, was about 16 yearsold at the time of recording of his statement in the Court.He fullysupported the case of the prosecution and was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.According to him, he was watching television when Ranjeetalong with other accused had come to the house of Rajkumari.He alsostated that he did not raise hue and cry as he was under constant threat bythe other co-accused, who were surrounding him.He also stated that he wasconfused and was unable to point out anything at that point of time.Inhis cross-examination, he was posed the following question, which adds tothe veracity of his statement:b� Question: - When Raj Kumari was restless due to pain, did you go to call up Ranjeet?Ans:- Why I should have gone to call up Ranjeet when he, in person, was involved in this incident.b�As already noticed, this witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination.He also admitted in his cross-examination b� it is correct tosay that I was afraid whether the police would not make me the accused.b�She stated that when she visited the house of Rajkumari, Ranjeet washolding the younger infant of Rajkumari in his lap and she had sent Ranjeetto call the people but instead he called Rewa Lohar, a witch doctor.PW1, PW6 and PW12 had substantially supported the case of theprosecution and we are unable to notice any substantial conflict orcontradiction in their statements.The semen, blood and blood-stainedclothes, which had been seized during the investigation, had been sent forexamination.The report of the FSL had been placed on record as Ex.b� (8) During trial, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur Ex.P-23 dated 31-7-2007 was produced and admitted in evidence under Section 293 of the Code by which presence of blood on Articles A, B, C, D, E, F1, F2 and presence of seminal stains and human spermatozoa on Articles C, D, E, F1, F2, G1, H1, I1, J1 and K1 was confirmed.Seminal stains and human spermatozoa was not found on Articles A and B. The seminal stains on Articles C, D, E, F1 and F2 were not sufficient for serological examination.The Slides Articles G2, H2, I2, J2 and K2 were preserved if D.N.A. Test was felt necessary.The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.Theneedle of suspicion pointed towards Dhaniram and Bhupendra for the reasonthat Bhupendra was earlier married to Rajkumari and Dhaniram with referenceto the circumstances in existence at the spot and he being the only personavailable.It was argued that Dhaniram could have committed the crime ashe was the only person present in the house when all the persons watchingthe television had left the house.There were discrepancies in the inquest report and clear conflictbetween the medical evidence and the oral evidence.The evidence of theprosecution was also found to be suffering from serious infirmities.Inthe present case, none of these exists.There are four or five prosecutionwitnesses, including PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW10, who had been declaredhostile during the course of hearing of the trial.These witnesses werenot the witnesses to the scene of crime.They were witnesses only tosupport the fact that the accused persons were seen together near the houseof the deceased Rajkumari, after all others had gone to their respectivehouses, after watching television at the house of the deceased.PW6, as alreadynoticed, had withstood the long cross-examination despite his young age,the threat extended to him by the accused and being the sole eye-witness ofsuch a heinous crime.It goes to the credit of this witness that despitethe fact that other five witnesses had turned hostile being the person ofthe village, he nevertheless stood to his testimony.As far as the delay is concerned, we are not in agreement with thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants that the delay does not standexplained in the present case.The occurrence took place at about 11 p.m.at night in a village area where normally by this time, people go to theirrespective houses and stay inside thereafter.After committing the rape onthe deceased and her subsequent death which itself took a considerabletime, the accused persons remained in the house for some time.In the meanwhile, the news had spread and oneAshok had rung up PW1 who came to the spot of occurrence.Wealso cannot lose sight of the statement of PW4, father of PW6, who statedthat when he went to the Police Station, he found his son there whoinformed him that he was in the Police Station since the past two days.His son had challenged all the four accused persons in his presence andlater he was informed by the Police that his son was a witness in the case.This witness knew the accused persons as well as the deceased Rajkumari.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
452,661 |
ORDER Suryanarayana Rao, J.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,268,925 |
1 018 L) CRM No. 8247 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19th September, 2018 in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No. 301 dated 10.08.2018 under Sections 342/323/325/307/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Alima Khatun and others ... Petitioners Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Rajeshwar chakraborty ... for the petitioners Ms. Sreyashee Biswas ...for the State Leave is given to Advocate for the petitioners to correct the cause title by incorporating an additional provision.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Falakata Police Station Case No. 301 dated 10.08.2018 under Sections 342/323/325/307/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the petitioners, following a matrimonial dispute, the petitioner no.1 herein left the matrimonial home and began to reside at her paternal residence.Apparently, the victim came to meet the petitioner no.1 on August 9, 2018 and upon the petitioner no.1 not agreeing to return to the matrimonial 1 2 home, the victim consumed poison and the victim was admitted to the hospital and discharged two days later.It is the further submission of the petitioners that on August 13, 2018 the victim again visited the petitioner no.1 at her paternal place and consumed poison upon the petitioner no.1 refusing to return with the victim.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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,269,552 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Ankit Shukla in Case Crime No. 199 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 392, 436, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Lucknow.(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Arun/-
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
452,719 |
The petitioner was the sole accused in C.C.No.192 of 2007 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli for offence underSection 392 r/w.397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In thesaid case, on the complaint of one Babu, the respondent herein had registeredthe case, investigated and filed the final report.During trial, howeverMr.Babu who was examined as P.W.1, disowned the first information said to havebeen given by him and he did not support the case of the prosecution.Therefore, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor.Subsequent to the said judgment, the petitioner filed a privatecomplaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli inCriminal Miscellaneous petition No.1431 of 2007 against the respondent hereinalleging that the respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section211 of the Indian Penal Code.On taking cognisance, the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Tiruchirapalli has recorded the statement of the petitioner underSection 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statement of oneSundaramurthy, S/o.Six documents were also exhibited.Considering all the materials available on record, the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli by order dated 10/12/2007 dismissedthe private complaint.Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forwardwith this Criminal Revision Case.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perusedthe records and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tiruchirapalli.(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, suchCourt shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court accordingto the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence isalleged to have been committed.A plain reading of Section 195 (1) (b) (i) would go to showthat except the Court, no other person has any locus standi to prefer acomplaint.Since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli cannottake cognizance of the offence on the complaint of the petitioner and thus, thelearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, was right in dismissing thecomplaint.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitthat because of the act of the respondent, the reputation of the petitioner hasbeen lowered and thus, an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code hasalso been committed by the respondent.But a perusal of the records would go toshow that there are no materials to satisfy the basic ingredients of Section499 of the Indian Penal Code at all, so as to make out a prima facie of defamation.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, TiruchirapalliThe Public Prosecutor, Madurai bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,279,257 |
The victim Raji was initially married to one Soma and they were staying at Mumbai at Babrekar road.Due to tuberculoses said Soma died at his native place in Gujarat.Thereafter, victim his wife, came back to Mumbai.When earlier she was staying with her husband Soma, they had secured rental accommodation at the instance of the appellant-accused.During the life time, Soma was working as a sweeper in the Corporation.After his death, victim Raji got the said job on compassionate ground.The appellant accused was on visiting terms with the family of victim during the life time of her husband Soma and even after his death the appellant continued to visit the house of Raji when she was alone staying at home.At times, the victim was visiting the house of PW-1 complainant Shantabai who was her near relative.At some occasions, the appellant accused was also visiting the house of PW-1 complainant and used to talk to the victim.On 10th March, 2003 at about 2:00 p.m. neighbour of the victim, PW 3 Mrs Nanda Purshottam Makwana came to the house of the victim and noticed that victim was lying in the room in pool of blood.Probably, victim died on the spot due to severe cut injury on her neck.Noticing this situation, PW 3 immediately informed PW 1, relative of the victim.PW 3 was acquainted with PW1 and was knowing her place.Thereafter, PW 1 reached the house of victim and after ascertaining the situation, she gave her complaint to the police who reached on the spot on information.During investigation the dead body was sent for postmortem.Panchnamas were prepared revealing name of the accused.2) By the impugned judgment and order, the present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 1 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer RI for three months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::Victim Raji was not giving much response to the appellant-accused and was not inclined to have 2 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc any relation with him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::He was put under arrest.After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.During the trial total 9 witnesses were examined and the matter ended in conviction of the appellant accused for the offence of murder.This judgment and order is challenged in the present appeal.6) During the argument, learned Advocate for the appellant - accused submitted that entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and said circumstances are allegedly incriminating against the appellant.The said circumstances are :-3 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::(i) The accused had expressed his desire to marry with the victim;(ii) He was on visiting terms with the victim and being a widow she was staying alone.(iii) Accused was seen passing through the house of the victim at the early hour on the date of the incident as witnessed by PW No.6 one Shabana Shaikh, a woman residing in the neighborhood of the victim.(iv) There is a recovery of blood stained shirt and pant of the accused at his instance on 13.3.2003 and the said clothes were having blood stains of B group and blood found on the clothes of the victim is also of B group whereas the blood group of the accused is A.7) By pointing out the above alleged circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the accused/appellant that these circumstances cannot be taken as so incriminating and clinching so far as pointing to only one hypothesis as to accused had committed murder of the victim on the relevant night.8) So far as the first circumstance is concerned, evidence of PW 1 complainant Shantabai is the only evidence attracting this circumstance.During the cross-examination of the complainant, it is denied by the accused as to expressing any such desire to marry with the victim.On this 4 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc point, it is argued on behalf of the appellant-accused that if at all this circumstance is accepted, still it will not further the case of the prosecution that the accused had done away with the victim.Moreover, it is further submitted that the accused had never acted in such a manner to outrage the modesty of the victim at any time or sexually assaulted her at any time.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::9) So far as the second circumstance is concerned, it is apparent that the accused was on visiting terms with victim Raji and also her husband when Soma was alive and as such it was not newly developed relation by the accused with Raji of visiting her house after the death of her husband.On the contrary, the accused was even on visiting terms with the complainant who is near relative of the victim and was meeting the complainant and victim when she used to be at the place of the complainant.As such mere visiting the victim as stated by the complainant and also by neighbouring witnesses PW 3 Nanda and PW 6 Shabana, cannot be construed as a circumstance furthering the case of the prosecution.10) So far as the third circumstance is concerned the mere statement of PW 6 Shabana as to seeing the accused passing through the house of the victim cannot be considered as clinching material mainly considering that the house/room of the victim situated in a chawl like structure and from the front of the chawl being a public way, various persons pass and re-pass.So far as odd hour of about 2 or 3 a.m. is concerned, it is quite possible that the person and for that matter as mentioned by PW 6, the accused if remained 5 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc present at the said chawl, it cannot be considered as an objectionable circumstance so as to link to the conclusion of the involvement of the accused in the offence of murder.This is more so when water was available in that locality only at such odd hours.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::11) So far as fourth and last circumstance is concerned, it is argued on behalf of the appellant-accused that when he was arrested on the night of 11.3.2003 immediately no steps were taken to search his house to find out any incriminating material.6 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::13) Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the appellant-accused that allegedly the weapon of offence was found on the spot itself.It is a kitchen knife.However, no steps were taken during the investigation to find out any finger prints on the handle of the knife.Considering this submission, in our view if those steps would have been taken by the Investigating Agency, it would have given more authentic clue to find out the assailant.However, in the present matter, it has to be ascertained whether the case, as it is produced before the trial court as mentioned in the above referred circumstances, whether can establish involvement of the accused in the offence of murder?In that view of the matter, not taking the steps to find out the finger prints on the handle of the knife may not be of much relevance.14) Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that the evidence of the prosecution is falling short of that standard which is required to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence of murder when the case is based on circumstantial evidence.15) In the result, the present appeal must succeed and same is accordingly allowed with the following order.(1) Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2005 is allowed.7 /8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 ::: judgment in apeal-292-05.doc (2) Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail.(3) Writ of order be expedited.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::(4) Before parting with this judgment, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the way in which Ms Rohini Dandekar, learned appointed advocate appearing for the appellant has conducted the matter.She was thoroughly prepared with the matter and she has very ably argued the matter.We quantify her fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand,Five Hundred only).The same to be paid to learned Advocate Ms Rohini Dandekar within a month from today.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:53 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,284,323 |
3 Learned A.P.P opposes the application.He submits that there is no change of circumstance, since the applicant's first anticipatory bail application was rejected on 21st June 2019, warranting consideration of the second anticipatory bail application.4 Perused the papers.According to the prosecution, Bharat (deceased) left his house on 23rd August 2016, at around 2:30 p.m, to meet Devram Nikhade, Santosh Nikhade, Babu Shaikh and Monika Pasare at Aman Hotel, Shirol.It appears that at about 7:45 p.m, Bharat spoke to his wife- Hirabai on the phone and informed her that some warrant was issued against both of them by a Court at Kasara and that he was going to Kasara Police Station.On 12th September 2016, Bharat's son-Dinesh lodged an FIR with the Kasara Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 365, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC as against Devram, Santosh, Babu and Monika.Pursuant to the said FIR, Devram and Santosh were arrested by the police and were released on regular bail, whereas, Babu and Monika were granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court.On 20 th June 2018, a skeleton of a male along with a motorcycle was found in river Vaitarna.The complainant (son of Bharat) and his mother (Hirabai) identified the motorbike as belonging to Bharat.Bharat was also identified on the basis of his shirt and shoes.Iron plates, grinding stone, plastic sacks filled with stones and nylon rope were found at the spot.The skeleton was sent for DNA profiling.Pursuant thereto, the police added Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC to the aforesaid FIR.During the course of their interrogation, name of the applicant emerged as being an accused in the said crime.MONDAY, 12th OCTOBER 2020 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) P.C. :1 This is the second application filed by the applicant, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. I-34 of 2016 registered with the Kasara Police Station, Thane, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC').Sitabai, who allegedly gave supari to the applicant was also arrested in the course of investigation.5 In paras 6 and 7 of the order dated 21 st June 2020, it has been observed as under :"6 According to the prosecution, it transpired during investigation, that co-accused Sitabai felt that Bharat (deceased) had done black magic on her husband, as a result of which, her husband expired, pursuant to which, she gave supari to the applicant to kill Bharat.It is alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused caused the death ofSQ Pathan 3/5 20-ABA-St-2257-2020.doc Bharat and dumped his body along with the motorcycle in river Vaitarna.In the course of investigation, statements were recorded, which prima facie, show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence.The statement of Kadam Malu Ughde (neighbour of Sitabai) shows that two years prior, he had seen the present applicant along with 4-5 others forcibly making Bharat sit in the car, after which, Bharat went missing.He has stated that out of fear, he did not disclose the same to any person.Similarly, the statement of Devram Shinde also shows that he had seen the applicant and 4-5 others along with deceased Bharat two years prior, at around 8:00 p.m. He has stated that he saw the applicant along with 4-5 others forcing Bharat to sit in the car, after which, Bharat went missing.He has stated that he did not disclose the incident to any person due to the fear of the applicant, who was a terror in the area.The statement of Smt. Shevanti Dhapte (sister-in-law of Sitabai), shows that in April 2016, co-accused Sitabai had asked her for money, as she was in need of money.Shevanti has stated that she had given an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in 3 instalments i.e. Rs.50,000/- prior to Bharat going missing and two instalments i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- after Bharat went missing.She has given her bank details, when the said amounts were withdrawn.She has stated that when she asked Sitabai why she wanted so much money, Sitabai disclosed to her, that she had given supari of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the applicant to kill Bharat.Sitabai also disclosed that Babu Dhapte (applicant) after killing Bharat, had thrown his body in the water.The said statement can be said to be an extra- judicial confession.The statement of Bhaskar Dhapte, throws light on the motive to kill Bharat i.e. Sitabai felt that Bharat had killed her husband by doing black magic.7 Apart from the aforesaid, there is other material, in the form of articles found in the house search of the applicant i.e. weights similar to those which were found in the water bed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,287,375 |
Item No. 72And In the matter of: Premanshu Das @ Premangshu Das & Ors.- versus -State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sibaji Kumar Das For the Petitioners Ms. Zarin N Khan For the State Leave granted to amend the cause title.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Titagarh Police Station Case No. 674 of 2011 dated 16.12.2011 under sections 498A/313/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, the Petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law, the Petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law and the Petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of the complainant.The Petitioner No. 5 is the uncle-in-law of the victim.We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.There are direct allegations against the Petitioner No. 2 having given the complainant an indecent proposal besides allegations have been made against the Petitioner No. 1 as well.In these circumstances, the Petitioner No. 1, Premanshu Das @ Premangshu Das and Petitioner No. 2, Probhat Kumar Das do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.Hence, the application for anticipatory bail of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 is rejected.As regards the Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 5, there is no need for the custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,757,964 |
Case diary perused.This first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.197/2019 registered by P.S. Kotwali District Panna (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 114 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that on 06/03/2019 at about 11.00 am, co-accused Anita has taken prosecutrix aged about 19 years from village Kalyanpur under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali District Panna, on the pretext of some work where she handed over her to co-accused Balam Ahirwar, Patwari @ Bhagwandas Basore.In the intervening night of 6 th and 7th March, 2019, they have committed intercourse with her without her consent in the house of Bhagwan Das.It is also alleged that applicant Ranjeet Rai was also present there who has taken some video snaps of the act and were shown to the prosecutrix and threatened her that she did not inform the incidence to anybody, otherwise snaps will be viraled and she will be killed.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime and has falsely been implicated in the case.He is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application and there is no likelihood to his for absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.The applicant is in jail since 18/03/2019 and trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer of the applicant and prays Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 08/05/2019 22:45:45 2 MCRC-16700-2019 for dismissal of the application.No allegation against the applicant that he has committed intercourse with the prosecutrix.So far as, photographs or video is concerned, no such video or photos are obtained from the mobile which was recovered during the course of investigation.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18/03/2019, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 08/05/2019 22:45:45
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,764,206 |
He assures the Court that within a period of 4 weeks appropriatedecision will be taken.Various questions arise.FIR registered on 24/12/2013 is undersections 339, 340, 341,378 to 382 to 414, 390, 391, 392, 425, 506(II),120(B) and 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 23:23:34 :::rsk 2/2 65-WP-213-19.docThe police machinery could have submitted final report to thecompetent Court.That also has not been done.In this situation, we direct that investigation in said FIR betransferred to DCP Crime Branch, Mumbai.The petitioner to communicatethis order to that Department.We direct Investigating Officer to transferpapers forthwith to that department.The petition is accordingly allowedand disposed of.(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 23:23:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 23:23:34 :::
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,766,331 |
LTD.) Registered Office at:1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi2. ARUN KUMAR BHAGAT Director M/s. Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Also at:CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 2 of 19R/o.-Flat No.7157, Block: D-7, Vasant Kunj, New Dehi.4. PURAN CHAND SACHDEVA Director M/s Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New DelhiPRAVEEN KUMAR (EARLIER NO.4) Authorized Signatory M/s. Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Also at:B-13/12, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002, HaryanaPRADEEP SINGH (EARLIER NO.5) Authorised Representaive M/s. Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Also at:Apartment 1B75, Wellington Estate, DLF (Opp.DLF Golf Course) Phase-V, Gurgaon HaryanaJAI PRAKASH GAUR Authorized Signatory M/s Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Also at:DLF ESTATE DEVELOPERS LIMITED Shopping mall, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-I Gurgaon-122002 ....DEFENDANTS"As per the plaint, plaintiff had title rights in the two properties stated in para 5 of the plaint.The first property is land measuring 361 Kanal and 13 Marla situated at Village Bandhwari, Tehsil, Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana.The second property is land comprising of 44 Kanals and 11 Marla situated at Village Bandhwari, Tahsil, Sohna, District Gurgaon, Haryana.Jai Prakash Gaur.The details of such payments are as under:-No. Amount (in Rs.) Cheque No. Date Drawn on1. 3,75,89,000/- 578767 14.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon2. 6,04,12,500/- 578765 14.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon3. 7,48,40,625/- 578770 18.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon6,82,17,188 578778 21.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon5. 7,09,59,375/- 578776 21.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon6. 3,07,12,500/- 578787 28.09.2006 ICICI Bank, Sushant CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 4 of 19 Lok, Gurgaon Total 34,27,31,188/-CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 4 of 19The case of the plaintiff is that he was defrauded by the defendants because amounts which were received by the plaintiff in cheques from defendant no.1 of Rs. 34,27,31,188/-, he paid over the same in cash to the defendant no.1 through duly signed receipts of defendant nos. 5 and 6, and which was done because defendants promised to get funds invested in projects of the DLF group companies inasmuch as defendant no.1 company is a group company of the DLF group.The plaintiff further pleads that after the defendant no.1 took over the possession of the properties sold by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1, defendant nos.5 and 6 under a well planned modus operandi and calculated conspiracy lured the plaintiff to reinvest the moneys received with defendant no.1 company so that in the fresh lands acquired the DLF group would carry out development in collaboration with the plaintiff.The plaintiff further pleads that after receiving moneys from the plaintiff, defendants no.2, 3, 5 and 6 started avoiding the plaintiff and neglected the demands of the plaintiff for procurement of the proposed lands and execution of the sale deeds in his favour by the DLF group companies.Plaintiff further pleads that when defendants were not coming forward, plaintiff somehow managed to have a personal meeting with defendant nos. 5 and 6 on 01.12.2006 when plaintiff insisted for the documents relating to the progress of the project, but defendant CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 5 of 19 nos. 5 and 6 refused straight away and in fact defendant nos. 5 and 6 threatened the plaintiff from following the matter any further by telling the plaintiff that he would have to face dire consequences as defendants enjoyed immense political and muscle clout being big builders.Plaintiff further pleads that having left with no option he sent a Legal Notice dated 25.1.2007 to defendants no.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (wrongly pleaded in plaint to all defendants), which was received by these defendants, but these defendants neither repaid the monies advanced to the defendant no.1 company nor replied to the legal notice.The relevant paras of the plaint are paras 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 25 and which paras read as under:-That Defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the Directors/Authorised Signatories/Authorised Representatives of the Defendant no.1 Company and have at all times acted on behalf of the Defendant no.1 Company.As per the memorandum and articles of association, the Defendant no.9 and 10 are the promoters and initial subscribers to the equity CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 8 of 19 shares of the Defendant no.1 Company.It is submitted that the Defendant no.9 and 10 are companies that are group companies of the Defendant no.8 group.It is stated and submitted that it is Defendant no.8 is the group that holds and controls all the Defendants above mentioned.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 8 of 19That upon the afore-said invitation, the Plaintiff visited office of the Defendants in the first week of September, 2006 situated at Shopping Mall, Arjun Marg, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.During the discussions, the Defendant no.5 apprised and represented to the Plaintiff that he is the Director and Authorised Signatory of the defendant no.1 Company.The Defendant no.5 in order to lure and gain the confidence of the Plaintiff further apprised that the Defendant no.1 was one of the group companies of DLF Group (one of the leading real estate developer in the country) and further claimed and represented that he was also in the board of many DLF Group Companies including the Defendant no.1 Company and also on the board of DLF Estate Developers Ltd. (one of the promoters of the Defendant no.1 Company), and in that context the Defendant no.5 showed copies of a number of documents in support of his afore-said claim.During the course of interaction at the said office, the Defendant no.5 also introduced Defendant no.6 to the Plaintiff who was already present there.That besides the above, the Defendant nos. 5 and 6 also represented to Plaintiff that they are aware of some other pieces of land which they would procure in favour of Plaintiff at a much cheaper rate and thus, under a calculated design, the said Defendants induced Plaintiff to part with his ownership rights over the said properties.The Defendant nos. 5 and 6 further represented that as the Defendant no.1 being a real estate development company and also part of the renowned DLF group, they would facilitate an agreement between the promoters of the Defendant no.1 Company i.e., the DLF group and Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff would contribute the land proposed to be acquired by him through the efforts of the Defendants out of the consideration receivable by him for the transfer of his rights in the above mentioned properties and upon the fresh lands so acquired, the DLF group would carry out development in collaboration with Plaintiff.That the Defendants their malafide intention and design represented to Plaintiff that the money so paid to them as against the validity executed receipts shall be utilized towards procurement of land in the name of Plaintiff and that the land so procured would be CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 9 of 19 subjected to joint development by Plaintiff and the DLF Group or by the Contractors/Sub-Contractors to be nominated/engaged by Plaintiff or the DLF Group as may be mutually decided and the DLF Group will also provide its brand name, business and marketing support etc., to the proposed project thereby yielding huge returns from the said developed project which shall be beneficial for all the parties concerned.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 9 of 19The details of the said payments cheques are as under:-That as and when Plaintiff received an account payee cheque from the Defendant No.1 Company duly signed by Defendant No.5 and 7 towards sale consideration in respect of transfer of his rights in the CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 10 of 19 said properties, Plaintiff immediately arranged the cash against the realisation/credit and handed over the same to Defendant no.1 through Defendant nos. 5 and 6 against duly stamped receipts issued by Defendant no.6 on behalf of Defendant no.1 for the purpose of procuring/purchasing the proposed lands in pursuance of the understanding as stated above.The details of the cash given to Defendant no.5 and 6 acting on behalf of the Defendant no.1 Company are as under:-CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 10 of 19That after receiving the funds in cash to the tune of Rs.31,09,50,000/-(Rupees Thirty One Crores Nine Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) and execution of the said Sale -Deeds in favour of Defendant no.1 and taking over the possession of the said properties, the Defendant nos.2,3,5 and 6 under a well planned modus operandi and calculated conspiracy started avoiding Plaintiff on one pretext or the other.Whenever Plaintiff tried to reason it out with the said Defendants to do the needful as promised, assured and undertaken, the Defendants deliberately started neglecting the genuine and legal demands of Plaintiff regarding procurement of the proposed lands and execution of the Sale-deeds in his favour and to get executed the necessary collaboration/development agreements thereof with the DLF Group.That when the Defendants were not coming forward, Plaintiff some how managed to have a personal meeting with Defendant nos. 5 and 6 on 01.12.2006 at about 07.45 P.M at City Club, Gurgaon and in the meeting the Defendant nos. 5 and 6 further gave false assurances to the Plaintiff that they are in the process of procuring the proposed CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 11 of 19 land and very soon the said lands shall be transferred in the name of the Plaintiff.When Plaintiff insisted that the documents relating to progress of the matter be shown to him, the Defendant nos. 5 and 6 straight away refused to provide the said documents and told Plaintiff that the defendants have their own working system which is also prevalent under the other DLF Group Companies also and there is no requirement for showing any document whatsoever.When Plaintiff still insisted that the commitments be honoured as earliest possible, the Defendant nos. 5 and 6 threatened Plaintiff to desist from following the matter any further, otherwise Plaintiff would have to face dire consequences as the Defendants being builders they enjoy immense political and muscle clout and were having sufficient influence in the police machinery also.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 11 of 19These are applications filed by all the 10 defendants in the suit except defendant nos. 5 and 6 for rejecting the suit plaint and dismissing the suit.I.A No.7115/2010 filed by the defendant no.1 is for dismissal of the suit on the ground of the suit being barred by limitation, and therefore, counsel for the defendant no.1 prays for treating the application of defendant no.1 also CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 1 of 19 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and which oral prayer is allowed.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 1 of 19Plaintiff by this suit seeks recovery of a sum of Rs.31,09,50,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest against a total of ten defendants.Memo of parties in the suit is as under:-1. SUDIPTI ESTATES (Sic: SUDIPTI ESTATES PVT.1E, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Also at:R/o- 104/77, Silver Oaks Apartments, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-1220023. VIPEN JINDAL Director M/s. Sudipti Estates Pvt. Ltd.B-13/12, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122002, HaryanaDLF LIMITED DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1100017DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 3 of 19 New Delhi-1100017CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 3 of 19Rights in these properties were transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 for a total sum of Rs.34,27,31,188/- and which amount was received by the plaintiff from defendant no.1 through six cheques signed by defendant nos.5 and 7 namely Sh.Praveen Kumar and Sh.Plaintiff then pleads that he has been duped by the defendant no.1 and its Directors whereby plaintiff filed a complaint under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 resulting in FIR bearing no. 249/2007 under Section 420 IPC against defendant nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi.The investigating officer however filed a final report cancelling the complaint.Plaintiff challenged this in the competent court, but the court declined the prayer of the plaintiff for further investigation and which order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a petition before this Court which was said to be pending at the time of filing of the suit.Plaintiff therefore pleads the aforesaid cause of action for filing of the suit for recovery of moneys which arose in August, 2006 and also on 25.1.2007, 9.1.2010 and 16.1.2010 when plaintiff sent legal notices to the defendants but the defendants failed to pay the amounts claimed.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 5 of 19CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 6 of 19CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 6 of 19On behalf of defendant nos. 8 to 10 companies, it is also argued that they were nowhere in the picture and legal entities cannot be said to be in collusion with defendant nos. 5 and 6 to defraud the plaintiff.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 7 of 19To decide the issues urged on behalf of the defendants let me at this stage reproduce extensively the relevant paras of the plaint relied upon by the plaintiff to argue that the plaint discloses a cause of action and the suit is not barred by limitation, inasmuch as, it is these paras which will show as to whether cause of action is pleaded against defendant nos. 2 to 4 and 7 and also the defendants no.8 to 10 and as to whether at all the suit is barred by limitation against all the defendants.That having no option left, Plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 25.01.2007 to the Defendants and which the same was duly received by the defendants.It may not be out of place to mention herein that Plaintiff also filed a complaint under section 200 read with section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and in which an FIR bearing no. 249 of 2007 was registered under section 420 of IPC against the Defendant No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 at Police Station Connaught Place.That the investigating officer filed a final report, whereby cancelling he complaint of the Plaintiff.That the Plaintiff filed as application for further investigation as the investigating officer ignored certain vital facts in order to give benefit to the Accused therein.That having being duped by the Defendant no.1 and its directors and authorized representatives/signatories under the continuing protection of the influence, wealth and enormous power of the Defendant no. 8 and concerned with the potential devastating consequences of such dubious entity being allowed to operate on the stock exchange and have uncontrolled access to extraordinary sums of public monies, the Plaintiff was compelled to address a letter dated 04.06.2007 to the market watchdog, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) who vide its letter dated 25.06.2007 informed the Plaintiff that the complaint of the Plaintiff has been forwarded to the said Defendants for a suitable reply.The Defendant No. 8, vide its letter dated 11.07.2007 addressed to the Plaintiff, clearly denied the allegations and denied its association with the Defendant No.1 CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 12 of 19 Company.It further arose in September 2006 when the Plaintiff met the Defendant no.5 and 6 at their offices and when the Plaintiff was misrepresented and made to believe that the lands would be developed in accordance with the collaboration between the Plaintiff and other group company of the Defendants.It further arose on 25.01.2007, 09.01.2010 and 16.01.2010 when the Plaintiff through its counsels sent legal notices to the Defendants and despite receipt of the same the Defendants failed to pay the amounts as mentioned in the legal notice."CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 13 of 19CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 13 of 19Learned counsel for the plaintiff is not justified in placing reliance on Article 47 of the Limitation Act because the said Article does not apply when plaintiff seeks to recover amounts on the basis of fraud being allegedly perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendants and in which case it is Article 113 of the Limitation Act which would apply.CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 17 of 19CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 18 of 19CS(OS) No. 197/2010 Page 18 of 19The aforesaid discussions show that no cause of action is pleaded against the defendant nos. 2 to 4, 7 and 8 to 10, and therefore, the suit plaint is liable to be and is accordingly rejected as against these defendants.The suit plaint is also rejected as barred by limitation against all the defendants as the suit had to be filed, taking as correct the cause of action of fraud being perpetrated on the plaintiff, on or before 24.1.2007, and therefore, the suit had to be filed on or before 24.1.2010, but since the suit has been filed on 25.1.2010, the suit is clearly barred by limitation.The suit plaint is accordingly rejected, and dismissed on account of being time barred by applying Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,780,691 |
Certified copy as per rules.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 31.08.2015 relating to Crime No. 79/2015 registered at Police Station Govardhan District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 294, 148 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against co-accused Dholu and Chakrapan that they assaulted the deceased Hira on his head, causing head injury and consequently, he died.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the victim in such a manner.The common intention of the applicant cannot be presumed with the aforesaid co-accused.No offence under Section 302 or 307 of IPC is made out 2 M.Cr.C. No. 714/2016 against the applicant either directly or with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.The applicant is in custody since 31.08.2015 without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 714/2016It is directed that the applicant namely Ashok be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Shivpuri to appear before the committal Court and trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,603,428 |
And In the matter of: Sumit Kujur & Ors.........petitioners Mr. Kalipada Das.....................for the petitioner Mr. N. Ahmed Mr. Anwar Hossain.........................for the State Since Advocate for the petitioners does not press the petition, CRM 4464 of 2020 and CRAN 2621 of 2020 are dismissed as not pressed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,596,091 |
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased Kirpal and his wife Rama PW. 16 were working as labourers for the construction of houses Nos. D-250 and D-236, Prashant Vihar, Delhi.The deceased was also working as Chowkidar at these Houses.Om Shankar, after doing his work left the site at about 11-45 a.m. to take his lunch at house No. D-236 and first he went to house No. D-250 where Rama met him and he enquired of her as to where his brother-in-law Kirpal was.On this she told him that Kurwa and his three companions had come and had taken Kirpal with them on the excuse of playing cards.From there Om Shankar went to house No. D-236 and on entering the house he noticed that Kirpal had been caught by two persons whereas Kurva and the fourth person were inflicting blows with knives on the person of Kirpal.He had also seen playing cards lying there.On seeing Kirpal being given knife blows he became nervous and came out raising alaram.He went to the nearby Police Post Prashant Vihar and police came with him but in the meantime all the four assailants had escaped.This information was recorded at PCR as DD No. 48-A PCR in turn had conveyed the information to the Police Station Samaipur Badri where it was recorded as DD No. 6-A at 12-10 p.m. Copy of this DD entry was sent to ASI Yoginder Singh through Constable Balraj.PCR Van had visited the spot but the injured had already been removed from the spot by Constable Ram Kumar to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was admitted at 1 p.m. and had been examined vide MLC Ex. PW-18/B. He was declared dead at about 1-15 p.m. on the same day.On receipt of copy of the aforesaid DD entry ABI Yoginder Singh came to the spot but on finding that the injured had already been removed to the Hospital, he went to Hindu Rao Hospital.information of the incident had also been given to Shri Rati Ram, SHO when he was present in the office of DCP (North) and he also reached Hindu Rao Hospital.No eye-witness met him there.He came to the spot where Om Shankar complainant met him, who got recorded his statement Ex. PW. 8/A giving information about the occurrence as aforesaid.The said SHO made his endorsement on his statement and got the FIR registered at Police Station through constable Balraj.The scene of occurrence was photographed.He picked up aforesaid various articles lying there as well as sample blood from that room; blood stained stone was also seized from the Gali in sealed parcels.Blood stained shirt and Banyan and an HMT watch of deceased were seized by him in sealed parcels from the hospital.The site plan was also prepared.The Inquest report was prepared by him on 17-6-1988 and Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. L. K. Bharua on 17-6-1988 at 2.00 p.m. vide his report Ex. P.12/A. Blood stained underwear and sample blood of deceased were preserved by the post-mortem doctor in sealed parcels which were also seized by the police.On 18-6-1988 after search the three appellants were arrested by SHO Rati Ram from a house Majnu Ka Tilla on the pointing out of Om Shankar in the presence of the ASI Yoginder Singh.On interrogation all the three appellants had made separate disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof Badri had got recovered blood stained knife (Ex. P.8) and his blood stained washed shirt and pant from his house No. 8-43, Phase II, Budh Vihar, Delhi.Appellant Khem Chand had got recovered his blood stained shirt and pant from his house No. 8-42, Budh Vihar, and Appellant Raju had got recovered from his house No. V-39, Budh Vihar his blood stained shirt and pant.These articles were sealed and seized.All the seized articles were sent to CFSL.In CFSL reports Ex. PW.21/E, Ex. PW. 21/F and Ex. PW.21/G human blood of 'O' group which was of the deceased, was found on Durri, one pair of chappals, one towel and playing cards seized from the spot.Human blood of 'O' group was also found on the knife (Ex. P.8) got recovered from Badri appellant.Scene Of Occurrence :Ex. PW.21 had also lifted two pairs of chappals, Durri, playing cards lying scattered from bath room and other pair of Chappals and blood stained Towel from near the door of the kitchen from that house vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW.PW 8/B. Obviously, two pairs of Chappals must be belonging to the assailants.Blood has not been detected on two pairs of Chappals.This would show that two of the assailants must have left the spot in some hurry leaving behind their Chappals.This circumstance gives credence to the testimony of PW. 8 that he had gone to the place of occurrence during the course of occurrence and on seeing it he had raised alarm and by his sudden appearance at the scene the assailants were taken unaware and they had run away leaving behind their Chappals at the spot on his alarm.Blood stained scattered playing cards were found at the scene of occurrence.However, though blood was detected on the clothes of the three appellants as also on other two pairs of chappals, but it was too small for serological test.Test identification parade (TIP) of the three appellants was also arranged.However, they declined to participate in the TIP on the ground that they had been shown to the identifying witnesses.Kurva the fourth accomplice of the appellants had absconded.After investigation the three appellants were charged and tried for offence under S. 302/34, IPC.Prosecution had examined in all 21 witnesses including Om Shankar PW. 8 as eye-witness to the occurrence, and PW. 16 Rama wife of the deceased to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants.Another witness Radhey Shayam PW. 13 has not supported the prosecution case that he had seen the accused persons in the company of Kurva shortly before the occurrence.PW. 8 supported the prosecution case.The accused in their statements under S. 313, Cr.P.C. have denied their involvement.They have taken the plea that they have been falsely implicated and were detained by the police from 16-6-1988 itself.The accused Badri has also taken the plea that he was working as mason and had worked for sometime in a Kothi with the deceased and his wife Rama.Similarly, Raju also examined DW.The trial court found the prosecution case proved, held all the three appellants guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.P.W. 12 Dr. L. K. Bharua had conducted the post mortem examination on 17-6-1988 at 2 p.m. He had found injuries Nos. 1, 5, and 22, as abraisions; injuries Nos, 7 and 8 are surgical injuries; whereas remaining injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 to 21 are incised to stab wounds.Injuries Nos. 9, 10, and 11 have been opined as sufficient to cause death individually in ordinary course of nature.Death was due to shock and haemorrhage and death took place about 25 hour earlier.That the deceased had died homicidal death due to injuries caused to him has not been disputed and is also proved on record by the testimony of Post Mortem Doctor (PW 12) who has not been cross-examined about the extent and nature of injuries and also cause of death.Prosecution has been mainly relied on the testimony of P.W. 8 Om Shankar as an eye-witness.His testimony has been believed by the trial Court.In cross-examination he has stated that Kirpal and Rama used to live in Kothi No. D-250 which was under construction and Kothi No. D-236 was on its back and was at 2/3 minutes walking distance from that house, and it was also under construction; he used to live, in Kothi No. D-236 along with his father with the permission of Kirpal for the last about one month; that he had prepared his meals in the morning at house No. D-236, part of the meals was taken by him in the morning and the remaining food was kept on the upper slab of the kitchen there which he was to take at lunch time.He further stated that he had gone for his work at 8-30 a.m. and his lunch break is from 12 noon.It is suggested to him that he was not working at Kothi No. D-63 and had not gone to Kothi No. D-236, which he denied.There is also no suggestion that house Nos. D-236 and D-250 were not being looked after by deceased Kirpal.No material to the contrary has also been brought on the record.There is no reason to disbelieve his statement that he was residing at House No. D-236 which was under construction and was looked after by Kirpal; that he (PW 8) was working as labourer at the construction of House No. D-63; Kirpal and Rama were living at House No. D-250 and were working as labourers and deceased was also working as Chowkidar at Houses Nos. D-236 and D-250 which were under construction.Testimony of P.W. 8 has been assailed on a number of pleas as noticed hereafter.It has been contended that according to PW 8 the place of occurrence should be inside house No. D-236 whereas the injured was actually lying 3/4 houses away from there in Gali and this belies the presence and testimony of PW 8 as eye witness.PW 8 had seen the actual assault taking place inside House No. 236 and in cross-examination he has stated that when he returned from the Police Post along with police, he had found Kirpal lying near another Kothi.No. 11 V. K. Talwar who was residing at House No. D-229 has deposed that (on that day) at about 1 Noon he was present at his house and was taking his meals when he heard noise coming from the street; he came out and saw that the chowkidar, who was working in Kothi No. D-236, which was under construction, was lying injured and bleeding in the open, one or two houses away from House No. D-236, he informed the Police Control on telephone from House No. D-235 and thereafter police had removed the injured to hospital.V. K. Talwar has not deposed that he had seen the actual occurrence at the place where the injured was lying.It is approved by the testimony of PW. 8 Om Shankar, PW 17 ASI Yoginder Singh and I.O. PW.The places from where these articles were picked up and where blood was noticed inside House No. D-236 are shown in site plan Ex. PW. 21/8 prepared by the I.O. PW.Blood group of the deceased has been found on most of these articles.The deceased had not died an instant death, he was taken to Hospital where he had died at 1.15 pm The injured must have walked from House No.D-236 to the place where he was found lying as also held by the trial Court.There is no infirmity in the statement of PW. 8 on this count and this circumstance would not belie his testimony.It is also contended that PW. 8 has stated that his father Rameshwar had taken the injured in a three wheeler scooter which statement is incorrect as Rameshwar who appeared as PW.9 does not support him; Duty Constable Bidhi Chand (PW. 7) also does not corroborate him who has deposed that the injured was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital by Constable Ram Kumar who is also corroborated by MLC Ex.This makes presence of PW 8 at the spot doubtful.Rameshwar appeared as PW. 9 and he has deposed that he was informed about the murder of Kirpal at about 8 pm when he returned from work.However, in cross-examination he had stated that he was working in a Kothi 1-1/2 to 2 furlongs away from D-236 in Prashant Vihar and on this the trial Court has observed that he had no comprehension about 'furlong'.Obviously, he is not a very intelligent person.He was a very near relation of the deceased and when PW 8 had gone to inform other relations available nearby, it does not inspire confidence that he when available nearby would be ignorant of the occurrence till late in the evening.So, it cannot be said definitely that Rameshwar would not have accompanied the injured to the Hospital at the same time or soon afterwards.Rama PW 16 has also deposed that Rameshwar and some other persons had also gone to the Hospital and police had also accompanied her husband to the Hospital.The Courts should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chalf.In view of this legal position, the whole of the testimony of PW-8 cannot he discarded nor the whole of prosecution case can be thrown overboard because of some falsehood or embellishments or improvements here and there.Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way.PW 8 has deposed that police had arrived at the spot and he had given his statement EX.PW. 8/A to the police.He has not disclosed at what time it was recorded nor it was elicited on behalf of the appellants.But he has also deposed that police remained at the spot for some time and various articles were seized by the Police from House No. D-236 and also Stone Ex. P.7 was seized from outside that house in his presence through seizure Memo Ex. PW.8/B which is signed by him.21 Rati Ram has deposed that he was present in the office of the ACP when he received information of the crime and from there he immediately went to Hindu Rao Hospital and found that the injured kirpal had already died.From the Hospital he came to the spot.Complainant Om Shankar met him and got recorded his statement Ex. PW. 8/A. He made his endorsement Ex. PW.21/A on it and got the FIR registered through Constable Balraj.He had then got the scene photographed, prepared the site plan Ex. PW. 21/B, seized various articles from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW 8/B and also recorded the statements of witnesses.This Rukka purports to have been dispatched by him at 2.50 p.m. No suggestion has been put nor any material has been brought on record to the contrary.Constable Balraj PW.5 has deposed that he reached the spot along with ASI Yoginder Singh; he was deputed to guard the scene.SHO had reached the spot and had given the Rukka at 2.50 p.m. and he got the FIR registered at the Police Station.PW 3 Dharamvir Singh has deposed that he was working as Duty Officer at that time at the Police Station and at 3.15 p.m. Rukka was received through Constable Balraj.FIR (copy of which is Ex. PW.3/A) was registered and the copy of the FIR and Rukka were sent to Inspector Rati Ram.He has denied the suggestion that the FIR was recorded later on and not at the time it purports to have been so recorded.No material has been brought to support such a suggestion.PW 3 has also deposed that special report was sent through Constable Rajinder Singh within 25 minutes of registration of FIR but this Rajinder Singh has not been examined.In the circumstances, nothing turns out of it.Obviously, assailants and the deceased were involved in some dispute having arisen during the course of the game of cards.This circumstance corroborates the statement of PW.16 Rama that Kurva and his three companions had taken deceased with them for playing cards.12 Dr. L. K. Bharua had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased on 17-6-1988 at 2.00 p.m. He had noticed the following external injuries on the body :Abrasion 1 cm.x 1 cm on the middle of forehead.Incised wound vertical in direction, spindle shaped of size 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm x skid deep below the left eye.Incised wound over left cheek prominence of size 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep.There was beveling of skin.Incised wound just in front of left ear just above the angle of mandible of size 2 cm x 0.25 cm x muscle deep.The shape was spindle shaped.Linear abrasion marks in front and sides of neck of size 8 cm.The width varies from 1.5 cm x 3 cm.Incised wound in the middle of chin placed vertically of size 1 cm x 0.25 cm x muscle deep.Cut open wound (surgical) over right capital fossa of size 1" 1 x /2".Cut open wound (surgical) on medial aspect on leg (ankle joint).Two separately placed spindle shaped wounds (incised) of sizes 2.5 cm 1 cm ... ? .. and 2.5 cm x 1 cm x ... ? on the lateral aspect of lower part of left chest below the left axillary fold.The injury was spindle shaped and placed obliquely.The obliquely placed incised would on the left illiac region 2 inches lateral to the mid-line at the level of illiac crest of size 2 cm x 1 cm x ?.The shape is spindle shaped.Incised wound on anterior lateral aspect of left thigh 6" above the mid, patella region of size 2.5 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep.Incised wound on anther a lateral aspect of left elbow in size 3 cm x 2.5 cm x 3 cm deep; shape is like spindle.Incised wound with beveled margins one medial aspect of left hand, size 1.5 cm x 1 cm X skin deep.Spindle shaped incised wound size 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on medial aspect of left upper arm 2 "" above the elbow joint.Incised wound spindle shaped on posterior aspect of left upper arm 5" above the left elbow joint, size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.Incised wound over left buttock placed horizontally, size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.Incised wound just above and left to the lane left cleft size 2 cm x 1 cm skin deep.Incised wound on back of waist on right side of size 1 cm x 1 cm x skin deep.Abrasions on an area of 4" x 2" on back of left shoulder.Multiple abrasions on the back of chest on an area of 8" x 6".Internal Injuries :Skin around the back shows signs of abrasions on front and sides, but no blood clots below the skin, chest shows cut marks on its skin.After exploring the chest cavity, it was seen that one of the injuries No. 9 has not entered the chest cavity, but the other has entered the chest cavity through the sixth intercostal space and has cut the lower lobe of left lung on its lower border.The depth of the injury was 5 cm long.Injury No. 10 has entered the abdominal cavity through ninth intercoastal space and has cut the diaphragm and then cut the post border (surface) of stomach (lumen deep).Injury No. 11 has entered the pelvic cavity and has cut the left illiac blood vessels and the large bowel (lumen deep).The doctor has opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature.Abrasions as described in injuries Nos. 1, 5 and 22 were caused by blunt force; incised wounds are caused by sharp objects.Injuries Nos. 9, 10, 11 are sufficient to cause death individually in ordinary course of nature; the death was due to shock and haemorrhage.Injuries Nos. 1, 5, 21 and 22 are abrasions whereas injuries Nos. 7 and 8 are surgical injuries.The remaining injuries Nos. 16 and 17 which are incised wounds obviously had been caused by some other weapon.In cross-examination he further stated that it was not possible that more than two sharp edged weapons had been used for causing these injuries.Appellant Badri examined Dr.Bishnu Kumar as DW 3 who has deposed that injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 to 20 are possible with one weapon, that injuries Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are stab wounds and could be caused by a double edged sharp weapon, whereas the rest of the injuries are incised wounds, that all ante mortem wounds would be spindle shaped could be caused by a single edged or a double edged weapon even if they are of deep nature and that even superficial skin deep injuries would also become spindle shaped.He appeared again when he stated that injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 could be caused by a single edged sharp weapon.However, one fact is proved by the testimony of these two doctors that incised wounds would have been caused by more than one sharp edged weapon.This medical evidence shows that one of the assailants in all probability inflicted some injuries with knife Ex. P.8 whereas another assailants had inflicted other injuries with another knife.This medical evidence also corroborates PW. 8 to the extent that two of the assailants were seen by him giving blows with knives on the deceased.It is then contended that PW. 8 had not entered the house No. D-236 where occurrence took place as admitted by him and as such he would not have been in a position to see the assailants giving knives blows to the deceased at point A-1 of the site plan drawn by the I.O.Ex. PW.From this place it cannot be said that PW. 8 would not have been in a position to see the assailants.PW. 8 Om Shankar in his statement in chief however has stated that he was about to go from the back lane to kothi No. D-236, then he saw that accused Badri and one other person were stabbing Kirpal with Knives.In Kothi when he saw the occurrence and he retraced from the rear door but at another place he has stated that he had not entered rooms of the Kothi.He obviously was in some sort of confused state of mind.He has also stated that on seeing the occurrence he was terrified, retraced and went to the police post.From his testimony it cannot be said that he had not entered the rear gate of the house.In the circumstances, there is no reason not to believe him that he had seen two of the assailants giving knives blows while two others were holding Kirpal.The weight to be attached to such identification would be a matter for the Court of fact.TIP in an early opportunity tends to minimise the chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses fading away due to long lapse of time.One of the culprits, namely, Kurva was named in the FIR.The Investigating Officer obviously had made efforts to find out this culprit first but Kurva remained untraced and had absconded.During the course of Investigation the Investigating Officer joined PW. 8 and after making inquiries he was able to locate the three appellants together at Majnu ka Tilla at the house of the father-in-law of one of them, namely, Badri on 18-6-1988, i.e. after two days of the occurrence.PW. 8 identified them and they were arrested on such identification.In cross-examination he has stated that he might have stayed there for one half to one minute.This period was not so small that he would not have been in a position to look at the features of the assailants and in the circumstances it cannot be said that he was not in a position to identify them two days later.PW 8 was a raw lad and would not be knowing the importance of giving the features of the culprits in FIR, for that purpose his testimony cannot be discarded.The trial Court has believed his testimony in this regard.During investigation the three appellants had made disclosure statements and all the three had got recovered their one pant and one shirt each but blood was not detected on these clothes and have been excluded from consideration by the trial Court.Accused Badri had also in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex. PW 8/C got recovered blood-stained knife Ex. P/8 from his house.The evidence of this recovery has been challenged as infirm and unreliable inter-alia as no witness from the locality or independent witness was joined at the time of his arrest or when he made disclosure statement or at the time of the recovery of the knife.PW. 8 has deposed that the three accused were arrested on his pointing out from a house in Majnu Ka Tilla.Accused Badri had made disclosure statement about his blood-stained clothes and knife which he could get recovered from his house.Ex. PW. 8/C is the disclosure statement.PW. 8 has deposed that accused Badri had led the police party to his house and from the heap of debris lying in the Court-yard he had produced a knife Ex. P.8 which was sealed and seized in his presence.Seizure Memo Ex. P.W. 8/G also bears his signatures but then in cross-examination he has stated that he had not entered the house.However, the recovery of knife Ex. P/8 at the instance of accused Badri has also been proved by PW.17 ASI Yoginder Singh and PW.21 Rati Ram (I.O).They have also deposed that neighbours were asked to join at the time of arrest as well as at the time of recovery but none agreed.They have denied the suggestion that the accused had already been detained and the disclosure statement and the recovery are fabricated.PW 8 had no enmity prior to occurrence with any of the accused nor he has any motive or personal axe to grind by falsely implicating the accused.PW. 17 and PW. 21 are also not shown nor suggested to them that they were hostile towards the appellants or they had any motive for falsely implicating the accused.Though the two witnesses DW. 1 and DW 2 have been examined by the accused persons to show that they were detained from the evening of 16-6-1988 but no valid reasons are apparent for showing that they were so detained illegally.The three accused were arrested from the house of the in-laws of Badri from Majnu Ka Tilla where they had gone, after getting their whereabouts from the wife of Badri.If the police wanted to falsely implicate them perhaps they would have created other false incriminating circumstances against the other accused also and the clothes recovered from the accused would also perhaps have shown presence of human bloodstains of the deceased.The trial Court has believed these witnesses about this recovery.The post Mortem doctor PW 12 as well as DW 3 Dr. Bishnu Kumar examined by accused Badri have affirmed that some of the injuries found on the deceased were possible with this knife.This knife connects the accused Badri as the person or one of the assailants, who had inflicted knife blows to the deceased in the absence of any explanation from his side.The scene of occurrence as noticed earlier shows that playing cards were found scattered and smeared With blood on the scene of occurrence.Obviously, there was some dispute between the assailants and deceased during the course of game of cards and that could be the possible motive for the appellants to have connived against the deceased.In the circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in drawing adverse inference against the three appellants for their declining to participate in the TIP.PW 16 Rama the widow of the decease though in her testimony has made some inconsistent or contradictory or some incorrect statements which has invited criticism that she has made material improvements in her testimony in the Court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,614,407 |
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 25th August, 2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 11/2007, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, on each count respectively.In short, the prosecution case is that on 27.11.2006, when complainant Sajjad was sitting in his house with his father Khaju Usman (2) Cr.A.No.2127/2007 and elder brother Mohd. Afaq, at about 9.30 P.M. Nadira Bano reached there and informed that accused Hyder @ Munda, Sabir and Babloo were assaulting his brother Abbu @ Abrar.They all rushed to that spot and saw accused persons assaulting Abbu with fists.Accused Sabir was armed with sword.When they tried to save Abrar, accused persons scuffled with them.When accused Sabir started beating Sajjad, his father Khaju Usman came to rescue him.Accused Hyder @ Munda then dealt a knife blow in the abdomen of his father, as a result his intestine protruded out.On their shouting, people from the village gathered there.Sajjad went to police station Hanumantal and lodged the report Ex. P/1 at 9.45 P.M.. Police sent Khaju Usman to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur.Dr. Gopal Tirthani (PW13) examined his injuries.When Khaju Usman was being shifted to a private hospital, he succumbed to his injuries.Dead body of Khaju Usman was then brought to police station.Police conducted inquest proceedings and referred the body for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur.Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW14) performed postmortem examination of the body and found one stab injury on the left side of abdomen of deceased.2127/2007 injury/incised wound on the left side of his umbilicus having omentum prolapse.Injury was caused with hard and sharp object.Injury report Ex. P/15 was written and signed by him.When deceased was being shifted to some private hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on way.Dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur.Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW14) conducted postmortem examination and found- (i) stab wound situated 2" lateral to umbilicus on left side, 2.5 cm in length x cm width.Intestines were protruding out.The wound was elliptical with clean cut margins.On opening abdomen, intestines were found perforated through and through.Inferior vena ceva was also found cut.About one liter blood was found filled in abdominal cavity.Depth of wound was 9 cm.Sajjad (PW1), the son of deceased stated that at about 9 O' clock in the night on 27.11.2006 when he, his (6) Cr.A.No.2127/2007 father and elder brother Afaq were sitting inside their house, Nadira Bano came there and informed that appellant, Babloo, Sabir and Ranu were assaulting Abrar.They rushed to `Madar-chhalla' ground and saw accused persons beating Abrar.When they tried to rescue Abrar, accused persons indulged in scuffle with them.Intestine was protruding out from the wound.He opined that cause of death of deceased was internal haemorrhage because of the stab injury.The injury was ante-mortem in nature.During investigation, police prepared the spot map, seized plain and (3) Cr.2127/2007 blood stained earth from the spot and arrested the accused persons.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused persons and the case was committed for trial.Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity.On trial, after appreciation of evidence learned Sessions Judge held accused/appellant Hyder @ Munda guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.Finding the evidence insufficient to hold co-accused Sabir and Babloo guilty under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Sessions Judge acquitted them of those charges.However, they were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly.He committed error in relying upon the evidence of Sajjad (PW1) and Abbu @ Abrar (PW2), who were close relatives of the deceased.Other witnesses Karim Ansari (PW7), Nadira Bano (PW8) and Hero @ Munna (PW16) did not support the prosecution case, therefore, they were declared hostile.He has thus remained in jail for a period of about 5 years and 4 months.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, submitted that appellant stabbed deceased when he tried to save his son Sajjad from being beaten.The injury was inflicted on the vital part like abdomen due to which intestines of deceased protruded out.Incident was witnessed by Sajjad, Abbu @ Abrar and Afaq, who categorically stated about the act of appellant.According to him, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was justified and called for no interference.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed that the deceased died of homicidal injuries.It was stated by Sajjad (PW1) and Abbu @ Abrar (PW2) when accused Sabir and Babloo were assaulting them, deceased tried to rescue Sajjad, then appellant Hyder took out a knife from his trousers and dealt its blow in his abdomen, as a result of which, his intestines came out.Deceased was sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur where his injuries were examined by Dr. Gopal Tirthani (PW13).Dr. Gopal found a stab (5) Cr.A.No.In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was syncope due to internal hemorrhage.The postmortem report Ex. P/17 was written and signed by him.From the above evidence, it stands amply established that deceased died due to ante-mortem homicidal stab injury.Next question before us is whether appellant caused injury to deceased which resulted into his death.When Sabir and Babloo started assaulting him, his father tried to save him then suddenly appellant took out a Chhuri from his trousers and stabbed it into the abdomen of his father due to which his intestines protruded out.On a shouting, accused persons ran away.His father was taken to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur for Medico Legal Examination.When he was being shifted to a private hospital, on way, he expired.The same story was repeated by Abbu @ Abrar (PW2).According to him, on 27.11.2006 accused persons started beating him.On the point of knife and sword, they carried him to `Madar-chhala' ground.Hyder assaulted him with a knife.When this information reached to his brother and father Khaju Usman, they came there and tried to rescue him.In the course of scuffle, suddenly appellant took out a Kattar which he had kept in his shoes and stabbed in the abdomen of his father.On hearing their screams, when people assembled there, accused persons ran away.As a result of injuries, his father died.Both these witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross examination, but they remained firm and consistent through out.(7) Cr.A.No.Mohd. Afaq (PW5), who is also a son of deceased stated that while he was sitting with his father and brother, Nadira Bano informed them that appellant and other accused persons were beating his brother Abbu.When he, his brother and father went there and tried to intervene, accused persons started beating Sajjad.When his father tried to save Sajjad, appellant took out a Kattar and inflicted its blow in the stomach of his father.Mohd. Sarafraj (PW3) another son of deceased stated that immediately after the occurrence when he reached police station, he came to know that appellant and other accused persons had assaulted his father.The evidence of Sajjad (PW1) finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of Abbu (PW2) and Mohd. Afaq (PW5).His evidence finds further support from the first information report Ex. P/1 lodged by him within 15 minutes after the occurrence and by the medical evidence of Dr. Gopal Tirthani (PW13) and Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW14).It is true that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses happened to be the close relatives of deceased, being his son, but merely on that ground their evidence cannot be discarded.There appear absolutely no reason for them to have falsely implicated the appellant.Of course, evidence of such witnesses required a closer scrutiny keeping the factor of their relationship in mind.Normally a close relative of the deceased would be most reluctant to spare real assailant and falsely mention the names of other persons as (8) Cr.A.No.2127/2007 those responsible for causing injuries to deceased.Since, on a close scrutiny we find their evidence cogent, consistent and reliable, we hold that it has been established that appellant caused knife injury to deceased, as a result of which, he died.The next question would be whether learned trial Judge was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.On examination, Dr. Vijay Kumar found the injury situated above nipple on the left side of the chest extending 1" x 1/2" penetrating wound.On dissection, left lung was found penetrated.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,615,995 |
Case diary is available.sh This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.e ad The applicant has been arrested on 13/11/2017 in connection with Crime No.129/2016 registered by Police Pr Station Civil Line, District Datia for offence punishable under a Sections 302, 307, 341, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC hy and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.ad It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that all the witnesses, who had implicated the applicant, have turned M hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case and of at present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.02.03 11:39:52 +05'30' esh ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,623,830 |
C.c as per Rules.Shri Shishir K. Soni, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on I.A. No. 19803/2019 for seeking suspension of sentence.This is the first application of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence.The appellant was convicted under Sections 376(2), Section 506-II of the IPC and Section 3 (2)(V) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is aged about 70 years.The appellant was falsely implicated by the prosecution.The reliance is placed on findings of Court below in Paragraph 14 of the judgment as well as statement of Mohan Singh (PW-4) (Father-in-law of the prosecutrix).Learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the age and the aforesaid evidence, the remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.The prayer is opposed by the other side.Considering the age of the appellant and the statement of PW-4 and without giving any finding on the merits of the case coupled with the fact that final hearing of this appeal will take time, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant, Saiyad Liyakat Ali.It is ordered that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 30th March, 2020 and also on such other dates as Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL Date: 21/01/2020 14:04:35 2 CRA-9265-2019 may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.The said I.A. is allowed.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,596,298 |
JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J.By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has held that the respondent was innocent and entitled to acquittal from the charge framed against him for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').The case set up by the prosecution was that on receipt of information that a lady tenant of one Nanhe lal had died in a quarrel, the investigating officer reached the spot and found that in one room, adjoining the main gate, one lady with strangulation/ligature marks on her neck, was lying dead on a folding bed.Her name was disclosed to be Kamla (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').She was stated to be the wife of the respondent, namely, Holi Ram.In his statement to the investigating officer, made at the spot, the said Nanhe Lal, stated that about 8/10 days ago, one person, namely, Anjora had taken one room on rent and was living there with two other boys; all of them were working in a hotel; on 26 July 1999 one lady, namely, the deceased, came there and informed him that she was the wife of Anjora and had come from the village; thereafter the other two persons, who were living with Anjora left that place and the deceased and Anjora started living in the said room as husband and wife; on 30 July 1999 one person, namely, the respondent, came there and told him that the deceased was his wife and she had come from the village in Madhya Pradesh after leaving behind her children; long discussions between the deceased, Anjora and the respondent took place as the deceased was adamant on her living with Anjora; ultimately it was settled that Anjora shall leave the place on the same day and the deceased and the respondent will live in the said room; as agreed Anjora left the place around 11:00 PM with his bag and baggage; he locked the main gate of the house from inside; the respondent, the deceased and their four year old son Bablu slept in the said room; on the next morning at about 6:00 AM, the respondent called him and told him that the deceased was not speaking, whereupon he and his wife Nirmala went to the said room and saw that the deceased was lying dead on the folding bed with marks on her neck and her son Bablu was sleeping on the floor.Nanhe Lal thus, informed the police that he was convinced that the respondent had killed his wife on account of her infidelity.On the basis of the statement of Nanhe Lal, a formal FIR was registered against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and he was arrested.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including Nanhe Lal-PW6, his wife Nirmala-PW5, Ashok Kumar-PW12, real brother of the deceased.In defense, the respondent examined one witness-DW1, namely, his son Bablu.The evidence of PW5 and PW6 is on similar lines, wherein they have reiterated what Nanhe Lal had stated before the investigating officer.PW12-Ashok Kumar, inter alia, stated in his evidence that on 30 July 1999 the respondent had come to his house at Sonia Vihar, Delhi and stayed with him for the night.DW1, who admittedly was present in the room where the incident had taken place, was not examined by the prosecution.As a defense witness he has stated in his evidence that on the night of 30 July 1999 only he was with his mother in the room as his father, the respondent-herein, had gone to the house of Pappu Mama, namely, PW12 and had not come back during that night; the same night when his mother, the deceased, was telling him a story, two fat persons came there, abused his mother and then strangulated her with a saree; he was given slap and was threatened and thereafter his Mama had taken him away to his house.In the light of the evidence of PW12 and DW1, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the testimony of these two witnesses raises a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case that the respondent stayed with the deceased on the night of 30 July 1999 and had committed the crime as no one else was present in the room and consequently the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted.Hence the present leave to appeal.Mr. Akshay Bipin, learned counsel for the State has strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the testimony of PW5 and PW6, which conclusively proves that except for the respondent and his son no one else was present in the room and, therefore, only he had murdered his wife because he was unhappy about her living with Anjora.It is asserted that there was no ground to discard the evidence of the said two witnesses on the basis of the statements of PW12 and DW1, who was admittedly a young child at the time of incident as well as at the time of recording of his statement.We have given our careful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the material evidence on record.The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.Such is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court but a judge made guidelines for circumspection.Nothing favoring the prosecution could be extracted out of his cross-examination conducted at length.He denied the suggestion that "my father had stayed there in the said room on the night" and stuck to his statement in examination-in-chief.Consequently, Criminal Misc.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,221,684 |
S.R.SINGHARAVELU,J One Murugan (a) Senthilvel (a) Kumar was detained under the TamilnaduAct 14 of 1982 after branding him as a goonda by an order dated 19.8.2003 bythe District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in order to preventhim from indulging in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder and public peace.Besides three adverse cases, a ground case was filed against thedetenu.All thecases were filed for the offences under the Indian Penal code.While thefirst adverse case was filed under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, thesecond adverse case was under Sections 395 and 342 of the Indian Penal Codeand under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code.Both the lattercases are said to be in the same transaction although the place of occurrencewas shown to be different.Thus, there is an interval of five years between the two adversecases and the remaining other cases.By relying upon this, it was contendedthat there is no proximity in between the ground case and the adverse casesand the link between the prejudicial activities and the order of detention,thus, got snapped away.For the above reasons, the order of detention getsvitiated.Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside and thehabeas corpus petition is allowed.2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Prohibition & Excise Dept.3.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order) Dept., Fort.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
122,190,417 |
The trial Court has taken note of the background facts of the case.We reproduce the same herein below:-On 06.04.16 a call was received at 100 number from mobile phone No.9212191554 from Ramesh Kumar who informed that Highway Dharam Kanta, Alipur block Kante par caller injured hai, need ambulance.On this information DD No.27B was recorded at police station Alipur.SI Anil along with Ct.Attar Singh reached Highway Dharam Kanta, old GTK road Delhi.They came to know that injured had already been removed to the hospital.They found that there were three rooms behind the Highway Dharam kanta in one of those rooms opening towards North there was a wooden Takhat with bedding.There was blood on the bedding as well as on the floor of the room and one blood stained axe was also lying.SI Anil left Ct.Attar Singh and Ct.Manish, who also reached there, to protect the scene of crime.He informed crime team to reach the spot.SI Anil reached SRHC hospital, from there he collected the MLC of the injured.In the meanwhile Mukesh came there who identified the injured as Ashok, his father.No eye witness met him.Thereafter, SI Anil reached LNJP hospital there also no eye witness met him.Doctor declared the injured unfit for statement.SI Anil Deshwal prepared the rukka on the DD itself, came back to the spot and sent the rukka through Ct. Attar Singh.Crime team came there and inspected the scene of crime photographs were taken, from the spot bedding having blood stains.Blood from the floor.Piece of the floor having blood stains, the axe having blood stains were seized.He also came to know that the wallet and mobile phone of the injured is also missing therefore, sections 394 and 397 IPC were also added.3. Statement of Ashok (Sic Mukesh) was recorded who CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 2 of 11 told that on 06.04.2016 he went to the Highway Service station along with his father.There one Arshad was also working along with his father.When he reached the service station at about 11 am he found that some altercation was taking place between Arshad and his father regarding salary.Arshad abused his father.His father assured him and thereafter the dispute was settled.Thereafter, Mukesh came home.At about 1:30 pm.Babloo from the Highway Dharam Kanta came and told that somebody had hit on the head of his father and that Arshad is missing from there.Sanjay Singh also deposed about the dispute between Ashok and Arshad with respect to the salary and then Ashok told Arshad that he will make the payment of salary within 2 to 4 days.Arshad could not be found on that date.On 07.04.2016 Arshad was arrested and in his search the mobile phone of Ashok was recovered which was identified by Mukesh.He confessed about the commission of crime.He also told that he removed the money from the wallet and threw the same in the adjoining plot.He got recovered the lock and the key ring.During treatment on 14.04.2016 Ashok died.After post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives.The appellant has preferred the present appeal to assail his conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Pilot Court/North District, Rohini Courts: Delhi under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.59142/2016 titled State v. Arshad @ Ajay vide judgment dated 21.08.2017, arising out of the FIR No. 273/2016 under Section 302/392/411 IPC registered at Police Station Alipur.The appellant also assails the order on sentence dated 29.08.2017, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment for the said offence, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 1 of 11After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed after adding section 302 IPC as Ashok had died.MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.Accused was charged by my Ld. Predecessor for the offence punishable u/s 392/302 IPC and in the alternative u/s 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 2 of 11The material witnesses examined by the prosecution were PW-3-Sh.Sanjay Singh @ Bablu and PW-17-Sh.Deepak Kumar, who are witnesses to lastly seeing the deceased and the accused together on the date of the incident between 10:00 AM -11:00 AM.They have deposed consistently CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 3 of 11 that they saw the accused have a verbal fight with the deceased over payment of salary of the accused.PW-17 stated that they intervened and defused the situation, and the deceased assured the accused that his salary would be paid in a couple of days.The said witnesses have also deposed that they learnt of the attack on the deceased at about 1:00 PM -1:15 PM, when the deceased Ashok was found lying in his room in a pool of blood.Both these witnesses have also stated-and so did PW-12-Mukesh- (the son of the deceased), state, that on the service station, apart from the deceased, the accused was the only other person working, and that there was no other employee.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 3 of 11It has come in the evidence of these witnesses that at the time of discovery of the deceased in an injured condition, the accused was missing.This fact is also noticed in the crime team report (Ex.PW-1/A).The submission of Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is that it has come in the evidence of PW-17 during his cross examination, that their Dharam Kanta was 50-60 meters away from the service station, and his submission is that from such a large distance the said witnesses PW-3 and PW-17 could not have clearly seen, with definiteness, whether there was a quarrel, and as to who the deceased was quarrelling with.Mr. Verma next contends that the prosecution had, firstly, claimed the recovery of a lock and key of the service station from the accused.This recovery has been rejected by the learned ASJ.Learned ASJ has also CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 4 of 11 rejected the testimony of PW-12-Mukesh, when he claims that he was present at the service station when a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused.He also submits that so far as recovery of the mobile instrument of the deceased from the accused is concerned, PW-12 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.He also stated that the signatures of both of them were taken on blank sheets by the police.However, the learned ASJ has wrongly distinguished the said two recoveries, and submits that on a parity of reasoning, the recovery of the mobile phone instrument of the deceased ought to have been rejected for the same reasons, on which the recovery of the lock and key was rejected.Mr. Verma further submits that the personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW-12/A-6 drawn at the time of his arrest, shows 'nil' recovery from him.However, it is claimed by the prosecution witnesses that the recovery of the mobile phone instrument of the deceased was made from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, apart from cash of Rs.300/-.He submits that a recovery memo-Ex.PW-12/A-3 was led in evidence by the prosecution in respect of the mobile phone instrument and the cash of Rs.300/-.The said recovery memo has not been supported by PW-12- Mukesh.He submits that this recovery memo is doubtful in the face of the personal search memo of the accused showing 'nil' recovery upon is personal search.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 4 of 11Mr. Verma further submits that PW-3 in his statement has disclosed that at around 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM, brother of Ismile-who had visited at the service station in connection with the delivery of payment, had informed CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 5 of 11 him that the deceased Ashok was lying in a pool of blood.However, no investigation was conducted with regard to the identity of the said person and he has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution.Mr. Verma submits that the possibility of the involvement of the said person in the crime cannot be ruled out.He further submits that the absence of accused from the site-when the deceased was discovered in an injured condition in the room at the service station, was on account of fear.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 5 of 11On the other hand, Ms. Dhalla has supported the impugned judgment.She submits that in the present case, the last seen evidence is very strong in as much, as, there are two independent witnesses who have deposed that they had seen the accused and the deceased in the quarrel at the service station at about 10-11:00 am, and within about two hours, the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood in his room i.e. between 1:00-1:15 pm.She submits that this time lag is not much.She further submits that apart from the deceased, the accused was the only person working at the service station and it was for him to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was attacked and injured, which he has failed to do.She further submits that the conduct of the accused in absconding from the scene of crime and his absence when the crime was detected also points to his guilt.In this regard, she submits that PW-12 has admitted his CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 6 of 11 signatures on the recovery memo.Apart from PW-12, there are other police witnesses to the said recovery who have supported the case of the prosecution and she draws a distinction between the nature of evidence led in respect of the lock and key, and the mobile phone instrument.She points out that so far as the mobile phone instrument is concerned, PW-12 had identified the same as the one belonging to his father.However, it was not established on record that the lock and key were the ones used at the service station.Moreover, the recovery proceedings do not show that the lock and key were recovered on the pointing out of the accused, as they were found lying behind the service station.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 6 of 11She explains that the personal search memo shows 'nil' recovery, since the mobile phone instrument and the cash were considered as case property and not the personal belongings of the accused.For this reason, the recovery was recorded under recovery memo Ex.On the other hand, the accused had gone missing from the place of occurrence, even though he and the deceased were the only two persons working on the service station.This conduct of the appellant going missing from the service station points to his guilt.The defence that he ran away out of fear is not probablised, because he did not report the incident to the police or to the relatives of the deceased, or to any other person.He did not say as to who had committed the crime and at that time where was he.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 7 of 11Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for State and after perusing the impugned judgment as well as the evidence brought on record, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction.In his testimony before the court, PW17 stated that he witnessed a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.He further stated that he intervened in the said quarrel.The submission of Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant is that, as per PW-17, during his cross examination that their Dharam Kanta was 50-60 meters away from the service station, and that from such a large distance the said witnesses PW-3 and PW-17 could not have clearly seen, with definiteness, as to whether there was any quarrel taking place, and who was quarrelling with the deceased as stated by them.We do not find any merit in this submission as it has come in the evidence of PW-17 that he had himself intervened in the said quarrel which had taken place.This intervention could not have taken place without the said witness having witnessed the quarrel, and without his arriving at the place of the quarrel.The mobile phone instrument was identified as that of the deceased CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 8 of 11 by PW-12. PW-12 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.He stated that his signatures were taken on a blank sheet of paper.Personal search memo showed 'nil' recovery.However, the said recovery has been mentioned in the recovery memo.Ms. Dhalla has explained that the personal search memo shows 'nil' recovery, since the mobile phone instrument and the cash were considered as case property and not the personal belongings of the accused.In our view this explanation is completely acceptable.Pertinently, the Personal Search Memo Ex.PW- 12/A-6 and recovery memo Ex.PW-12/A-3 were prepared simultaneously in the presence of PW-12 and the accused.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 8 of 11As far as the recovery of the lock and key are concerned, recovery proceedings do not show that they were recovered on the pointing out of the accused as they were found lying behind the service station.Also, PW-12 does not identify the lock and key to be the same ones used at the service station.We agree with the submissions made by Ms. Dhalla, and agree with the findings of the trial court that the recovery of the lock and key at the instance of the accused is not established.The Ld. counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the brother of Ismile, who had informed PW-3 of the deceased lying in a pool of blood, has not been examined as a prosecution witness.He further argued that it cannot be ruled out that the said person could have been involved in the said incident.In our view, the non- examination of the 'brother of Ismile' as a prosecution witness does not alter the chain of events, and it does not affect the testimonies of PW3 and PW17 regarding lastly seeing the CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 9 of 11 accused and deceased quarrelling with each other; finding Ashok- deceased lying in a pool of blood in the room of the service station, soon after; and; of the accused going missing and being apprehended with the mobile phone instrument of the deceased.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 9 of 11Mr. Verma has submitted that the conduct of the accused going missing from the service station could be due to fear of getting falsely implicated.Although human behaviour varies from person to person, and individuals may react differently to situations, the natural conduct of an employee when he sees his employer lying in a pool of blood, would be to call for help or inform the Police.There is no evidence whatsoever led by the accused to show that there was someone else present at the service station, in the absence of which, the burden of proving what transpired at the service station is not discharged by the accused.Hence, this conduct of the accused of fleeing the CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 10 of 11 scene of crime without cogent explanation calls for drawing an adverse inference against him.CRL.A. 1102/2017 Page 10 of 11The appellant had motive too, for he had just engaged in an altercation with the deceased over the issue of wages and the situation had to be pacified by others.Keeping the above discussion in mind, we reject the appeal of the appellant.Consequently, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is upheld and the sentence passed is sustained.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,221,966 |
i)Under Section 409 IPC - Five years R.I. and Rs.5,000/- fine i/d 6 monthsR.I.ii)Under Section 420 IPC - Three years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine i/d 3 monthsR.I.iii)Under Section 477-A IPC - Three years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine i/d 3months R.I.iv)Under Section 477-A IPC - Three years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine i/d 3months R.I.v)Under Section 420 IPC - Three years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine i/d 3 monthsR.I.vi)Under Section 467 IPC - Five years R.I. and Rs.5,000/- fine i/d 6 monthsR.I.vii)Under Section 468 IPC - Three years R.I. and Rs.3,000/- fine i/d 3 monthsR.I.The learned Trial Judge also ordered sentence to runconcurrently for the first nine charges and separately for the tenth charge.The appellant faced trial in the following backdrop:i) The case of the prosecution is that the accused while working asCashier in the Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarathpet Branch, misappropriated a sum of Rs.94,400/- from the three accounts pertaining to P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5under the Account Numbers , 6964 and 6967 respectively.He has stated that therewere three Assistants, seven Clerks and one Sub-staff and one Sweeper workingin his branch and the accused rking as a cashier in that branch.It is theresponsibility of the cashier to receive the money and also to pay the amountto the customers.During September 1992, the accused was transferred to some other branch.Thereafter it is stated by P.W.2 that on verification inrespect of accounts for the month of August 1992 with the month of September1992, there were some variations.It is further stated by P.W.2 that P.W.10,Special Assistant also verified and perused the documents.P.W.4, one of theacc ount holders, presented her application which is Ex.P.5, and the saidP.W.4 was introduced by the accused and also the accused signed in Ex.P.5.P.W.2 further stated that he was working with the accused for more than twoyears and therefore, he is well acquainted with the signature of the accused.On 29.08.1991, P.W.4 started an account by depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the Pay-in-Slip, Ex.The extra ct is marked asEx.P.7 and the Pass Book is marked as Ex.Itis also stated by PW.2 that on verification and perusal of relevant documents,it was disclosed that the accused, by making false representation and also bymaking false credit entries in the books of account in respect of the accountholders viz., P.Ws.3 to 5, committed the offence of misappropriation byforging the signatures of accoun t holders, Viz.It is furtherstated by P.W.2 that by forging the signatures of the above said accountholders, the accused withdrawn amounts from their accounts without theknowledge of the account holders, by misusing or abusing and by il legal meansas a public servant during the relevant period, got pecuniary advantage to thetune of Rs.94,400/- and thereby committed offence of misappropriation andcheating the Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarathpet Branch and the accused hadcaused loss to the Bank.iii) Through P.W.2, prosecution marked the following documents:P.5 - Account opening form for Kalyani (P.W.4)Ex.P.6 - 29.8.91 Pay in slip with above form (Rs.1000/-)Ex.P.7 - Extract of statement of above accountEx.P.8 - Passbook of KalyaniEx.P.9 - Cheque book register maintained by BankEx.P.10 - Entry for issuing Cheque book for P.W.4Ex.P.11 -4.5.92 Pay in slip in the account of P.W.4 for Rs.30,000/-Ex.P.12 -20.7.92 Pay in slip in the account of P.W.4 for Rs.20,000/-P.13 -14.10.92 Pay in slip in the account of P.W.4 for Rs.60,000/-Ex.P.14 - 18.12.91 Debit Voucher for Rs.7,000/- from the account of P.W.4Ex.P.15 - 26.6.92 Debit Voucher for Rs.10,000/- from the account of P.W.4Ex.P.16 - 19.2.92 Withdrawal slip for Rs.2,500/- from the account of P.W.4Ex.P.17 - 5.6.92 Withdrawal slip for Rs.10,000/- from the account of P.W.4Ex.P.18 - 20.7.92 Cheque issued by P.W.4 to P.W.3 for Rs.30,000/-P.19 - 11.8.92 Cheque issued by P.W.4 to P.W.3 for Rs.60,000/-P.20 - Ledger entry for above transactionsEx.P.21 - 23.9.92 Letter by P.W.2 to Zonal Manager about the above transactions.P.22 - Letter by Appellant to P.W.2iv) Prosecution also examined P.W.3, one of the account holders inthe same branch and who is the brother of account holders P.Ws.4 and 5.Through P.W.3, Prosecution marked the following documents:Prosecution, by examining P.W.5, yet another accountholder, marked the following documents:Clerk-cum-Typist, in the branch.It is stated by P.W.18 that thecase was registered on the basis of source of information collected by thebranch.He took investigation on 10.11.1992 and thereafter he had collectedvarious documents from the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarat hpet Branch under Seizure Memos Ex.P.90 and Ex.P.91 respectively.On 12.11.1992, he has collected 7 items of documents under Seizure Memo Ex.P.W.18 already examined P.W.9 and recorded his statement.On 13.11.1992, P.W.18 collected 12 items of do cuments from the Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarathpet Branch underSeizure Memo Ex.P.93 and examined the witnesses P.Ws.3 and 10 and recorded their statements.On 17.11.1992, P.W.7 was examined and her statement was recorded.On 19.11.1992, P.W.18 collect ed 9 items of documents from theIndian Overseas Bank, Nazarathpet Branch under Seizure Memo Ex.On 20.11.1992, P.W.18 examined P.W.2 and another witness viz., R.Ramkumar.On 18.12.1992, P.W.18 sent the questioned documents to the handwriting expert along with specimen andadmitted writings for comparison and opinion through the Superintendent ofPolice.On 28.12.1992, P.W.18 collected 3 items of documents from the IndianOverseas Bank, Nazarathpet Branch along with a covering letter of the Managerdated 26.12.1992 under Ex.He examined P.Ws.14 and 15 and on 29.12.19 92, he conducted the house search of the accused.He collected 4 items ofdocuments under Ex.In view of the gravity of theoffences alleged by the prosecution, it is open to the prosecution to obtainsanction order from the compe hority as per the rules and regulations and toinitiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law from the stage of takingcognizance of the offences.The appellant in this appeal is challenging the conviction andsentence imposed on him by the learned Special Judge for CBI cases (XAdditional Sessions Judge, Chennai) made in C.C. No.136/97 by the judgmentdated 22.10.1998, convicting and sentenci he appellant under the followingoffences:Through P.W.6, the following documents weremarked:P.70,71&72 - 5.5.92 - Letters by P.W.6 to P.Ws.3, 4 & 5Ex.P.23 - Letter by Appellant to P.W.2 along with notification of cheques.Prosecution marked through P.W.10, Special Assistant, Ex.P.63 - S.B. A/c Receipt Book, and through P.W.11, marked Ex.P.W.11, UDC, Zonal TextileOffice, Government of India, has been examined to speak about the specimensignatures obtained from the accused by P.W.18, Investigating Officer.P.W.11was examined to speak about the accused obtaini ng loan from him.P.Ws.12 and 13 were examined to speak about the loans obtained from them, by the accused.Prosecution also examined the witnesses P.Ws.14 to 16 and also P.W.17,Handwriting Expert.P.W.17, after his examination in respect of the specim ensignatures obtained in the relevant documents produced before him, has givenhis opinion under Ex.viii) P.W.18, who is the DSP, CBI, registered the case inR.C.No.44(A)/92 on 16.10.1992 against the accused, under Sections 420, 467,468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 as per the orders of theSuperintendent of Police.On 31.1 2.1992, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.12 and another witness.On 11.01.1993, he collected 3 documents underSeizure Memo Ex.ix) Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by P.W.19,Inspector of Police.Thereafter, P.W.19 obtained theSanction Order for the prosecution accused from P.W.1, Vigilance Officer ofIndian Overseas Bank, Head Office, Chennai.P.4 is the Sanction Order.x) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 18 andfiled Ex.P.1 to Ex.xi) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, inrespect of incriminatory materials made appearing against him through theevidences adduced by the prosecution, he has come forward with the version oftotal denial and he has stat he has been falsely implicated in the case.Theaccused has not chosen to examine any witness on his behalf, nor marked anydocuments.M.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant, restricted his contention only in respect of sanction order, Viz.P.4, accorded by P.W.1, Vigilance Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank, HeadOffice, Chennai, for initiat cution against the accused.The learned SeniorCounsel made it very clear that he is not going into the merits of the caseand he is only questioning the sanction order Ex.P.4, accorded by P.W.1 forinitiating prosecution against the accused.Vigilance Officer of Indian Overseas Bank, Head Office, Chennai hasaccorded the Sanction Order, Ex.P.W.1 has categorically stated in hisevidence that he is the Discipli ority against the accused as per theBipartite Settlement dated 14.12.1966 and its subsequent amendments.At theoutset, the learned Senior Counsel contended vehemently that P.W.1, VigilanceOfficer, is not at all competent to accord sanction as he is no t empoweredwith the power to appoint or remove the accused.It is also further contendedby the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution placed reliance on Ex.P.1to Ex.P.3, viz., Notice of Circular of nomination of Disciplinary Authoritiesdated 23 .03.1988 (Ex.P.1), the Industrial Relations Department Noticecontaining permanent circular dated 23.03.1988 in respect of the operationalinstructions dated 10.04.1990 (Ex.P.2), and the certificate dated 27.02.1995issued to P.W.1 empowering him to act as Disciplinary Authority in the matterrelating to domestic enquiries as per their Circular No.200/88 dated23.03.1988 and No.1/90-91 dated 10.04.1990 issued by industrial RelationsDepartment (Ex.P.3).The certificate, Ex.It isfurther contended by the learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the abovesaid documents, Viz.The learned Senior Counsel alsopointed out in his contention as stated above, tha t P.W.1 categoricallystated even in his chief examination that the power to appoint the accused isvested with the General Manager and the same was delegated to P.W.1 who was the Vigilance Officer.Sardari Lal Vs.It isalso contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that P.W. 1 alsostated in his evidence that under Ex.P.1/Notice of Circular of nomination ofDisciplinary Authorities dated 23.03.1988, Ex.P.2/the Industrial RelationsDepartment Notice containing permanent circular dated 23.03.1988 in respect ofthe operational instructions dated 10.04.1990 and Ex.P.3/the certificate dated27.02.1995 issued to P.W.1 empowering him to act as Disciplinary Authority inthe matter relating to domestic enquiries as per their Circular No.200/88dated 23.03.1988 and No.1/90-91 dated 1 0.04.1990 issued by industrialRelations Department, he has been appointed as disciplinary authority by thebank and on the strength of the above said documents Viz.P.1 to Ex.P.3,P.W.1, accorded sanction on the perusal of the relevant materials prod ucedbefore him.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rivalcontentions put forward by either side.The entire perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, who has accordedsanction, Ex.P.1 to Ex.It is alsostated while narrating the facts that Ex.P1 is the Circular of nomination ofdisciplinary authorities, dated 23.03.1988 in respect of the BipartiteSettlement dated 14.12.1966 and its subsequent amendments regarding theappointment of disciplinary authorities.P.2 is the circular from IndianOverseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, issued by the Industrial RelationsDepar tment.P.3 is the certificate empowering P.W.1 who is the VigilanceOfficer regarding the power as a disciplinary authority in the matter relatingto domestic enquiries.Therefore, it appears that prosecution has chosen tomark these documents, Viz.P.1 to Ex.P.3 through P.W.1, the VigilanceOfficer, who has accorded sanction Ex.But P.W.1 has categorically st ated that there isabsolutely nothing in Ex.P.1 to Ex.The first sanction order dated 2-1-1995 was issued by anauthority that was not a competent authority to have issued such order underthe Rules.The second sanct ion order dated 7-9-1997 was also issued by anauthority, which was not competent to issue the same under the relevant rules,apart from the fact that the same was issued retrospectively w.e.f.14-9-1994, which is bad.Therefore, when the Special Judge took cognizance on 29-5-1995,there was no sanction order under the law authorising him to take cognizance.This is a fundamental error which invalidates the cognizance as withoutjurisdictio n."Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.km/gg To1.The X Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2.thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.3.The CBI / ACB, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,219,917 |
The applicants are in custody since 29.05.2015 in connection with Crime No.142/2014 registered at Police Station, Bhagva, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 34 IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and no case is made out against the applicants.Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the application.The bail application stands allowed.The applicants be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with one surety of the same amount with a condition that the applicants will mark their presence in the local police station on 1 st day of every month at 11 AM and continue to do so till conclusion of the trial.The applicants shall abide by the terms and conditions as prescribed under the M.Cr.C. No.10743/2015 2 provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C. No.10743/2015 2
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
122,202,640 |
Heard on I.A. No. 4114/2017, an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Also heard on IA No.2282/2017, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant - Chhotu @ Aashiq.The appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to him.He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.There are fair chances of success of this appeal.Under these circumstances, the appellant prays for 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 the appellant - Chhotu @ Aashiq.Subject to depositing the fine amount, if the appellant Chhotu @ Aashiq furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Shivpuri that he shall appear before office of CJM, Shivpuri on 22.08.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance of the appellant then the appellant shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Astha
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,187,459 |
under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.This judgment and order of the 5 th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 2 65/2005 is impugned in the appeal.The appellant faced trial along with Dadu @ Vitthal Khanduji Gaikwad and Vijay Khanduji Gaikwad, who however, have been sentenced for offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::2] Heard Shri Vinay Dahat, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.3] The complainant Prakash is the son-in-law of accused Vijay Gaikwad.The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') is nephew of Vijay Gaikwad and the cousin of the wife of the injured Prakash.The motive for the assault leading to the conviction of the accused is stated to be that the injured Prakash and the daughter of accused Vijay Gaikwad entered into matrimonial alliance, against wishes of the family of the bride.4] The case of the prosecution is that in the morning hours of 26.03.2005, which was the Rangpanchami day, injured Prakash Kamble (P.W.1) was at his house, his friend Rahul::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 3 Sadanshiv (P.W.6) came and invited Prakash for a meal.Prakash and Rahul went to the house of Rahul, spent sometime there and were proceeding towards the house of injured Prakash, when the incident occurred.P.W.1 Prakash and P.W.6 Rahul had reached in front of the house of Vijay Gaikwad, the accused tried to spray and smear colour on the face of P.W.6 Rahul, this was objected to by injured Prakash.The accused inflicted knife blows on the stomach of Prakash.Accused Vijay Gaikwad assaulted Prakash by stone and iron strip and accused Dadu @ Vitthal assaulted Prakash by kicks blow on the back.Injured Prakash was taken to the hospital by Kisan Kamble, Arjun Kamble and Amol Kokate.A report was lodged by injured Prakash (Exh.42) on the basis of which the Police Station Civil Lines, Akola registered offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Investigation ensued, upon completion of which charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court 5, Akola who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 307 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 4 The defence of the accused is that on the date of the incident, which was the Rangpanchami day, the injured P.W.1 was under the influence of liquor and was behaving disorderly.The injured complainant suffered injury due to his own weapon, is the defence.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::5] Shri Dahat, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the judgment and order militates against the weight of evidence on record.The evidence is marred by inter se inconsistencies and other embellishments, is the submission.The alternate submission is, even if the evidence is accepted at face value, the offence made out would be under section 324 of IPC.The injuries suffered by P.W.1 Prakash are not grievous and the evidence on record does not suggest either intention to cause death or that the assault was committed with the knowledge that either death or injury leading to death may be caused, is the submission.The wife of the injured Prakash, Sonal Kamble (P.W.4) has deposed against her own relatives including father Vijay Gaikwad.The evidence of P.W.1 Prakash is::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 5 amply corroborated by the evidence of Kausalya Kamble the mother of the injured Prakash (P.W.1), P.W.3 Mangala Kamble, P.W.4 Sonal Kamble, P.W.5 Bharat Varote and P.W.6 Rahul Sadanshiv, is the submission.The learned A.P.P. would submit that the evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Mohd. Aslam Jamal s/o Abdul Arif is that the injury three is grievous injury.The requisite knowledge that the injury may cause death must be attributed to the accused, is the submission.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::6] I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, and having done so, in my opinion the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that P.W.1 injured witness was assaulted knife by the accused.The burning question, is however, whether in the teeth of evidence on record, is there any substance in the submission of Shri Dahat that the offence made out will be under section 324 of IPC and not under section 307 of IPC.7] The incident is some what blurred.Concededly, the incident occurred on the Rangpanchami festival.The incident occurred in front of the house of accused Vijay Gaikwad, who is::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 6 the father-in-law of the injured Prakash.It is not the case of the prosecution, that there was any premeditated design to assault Prakash.P.W.1 Prakash states that the reason for the altercation was the attempt of the accused to smear colour on the face of P.W.6 Rahul.P.W.1 Prakash states that he tried to object and was assaulted by accused with knife.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::8] P.W.3 Mangala, the sister-in-law of injured Prakash is examined as eye witness.She states that she reached the scene of the incident and saw the knife assault.P.W.3 has corroborated P.W.1 Prakash on material aspects.She is an eye witness who has deposed that accused Balu inflicted knife blow on her husband Prakash.She states that she picked up a stone and threw the stone towards Balu.The stone hit Balu's hand and the knife fell down.She has deposed that her father Vijay Gaikwad and accused Dadu assaulted her husband Prakash by stone and iron strip.P.W.4 Sonal was subjected to gruelling::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 7 cross-examination from which her testimony has emerged unshaken.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::10] The incident is also witnessed by P.W.5 Bharat Varote, who corroborates the testimony of P.W.1 Prakash, P.W.3 Mangala and P.W.4 Sonal.His version is consistent with the version of the other eye witnesses.12] The evidence of eye witnesses to the incident is consistent, credit worthy and confidence inspiring.In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence is marred by several infirmities, I have closely scrutinized the cross-examination to satisfy the conscious of the court that the evidence of the eye witnesses on the core or the substratum of the prosecution version is not rendered suspect.Having closely scrutinized the cross-examination of the eye witnesses, I do not find any serious infirmity or embellishment which would dent the::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 8 credibility of the evidence of the eye witnesses.13] The defence that the injuries were suffered by P.W.1 Prakash by the weapon which he was carrying, is noted only for rejection.The defence is not probablized even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.The suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses that Prakash was under the influence of liquor, and it has indeed come on record that Prakash and Rahul did intend to consume liquor, is not sufficient to probablize the defence.The ocular evidence and the medical evidence both exclude the possibility which is put-forth by the defence as a possible alternate hypothesis.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:17 :::14] The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.Such a conviction could have been recorded first by recording a finding that were injured Prakash went to die due to the assault the offence committed would be under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.The pivotal issue in the factual matrix of the appeal, is whether the accused intended to cause death or the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that the knife assault would cause death or such injury as would cause death.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::P.W.10 has testified that the injured Prakash suffered four injuries which are described thus:Incise wound on abdomen inerioraly lower half left side.Size 1 inch x .2cm by subcutaneous deep.Incised wound on abdomen interior 3 inch x ½ inch by muscle deep.Incised wound 1 inch x ¼ inch by peritoram/cavity deep.On abdomen interioraly lower half right side ½ inch x .5 cm by subcutaneous deep.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::16] The Doctor states that injury three can be sufficient to cause death if it affects internal organs.In the cross-examination P.W.10 admits that injury one and injury four is only subcutaneous deep (cut to the skin is the deposition).Injury two, which is a incised wound is muscle deep.In so far as injury three is concerned, which according to P.W.10 can be sufficient to cause death if it effects internal organs, in the cross-examination P.W.10 states thus:The injury no.3 was found deep up to cavity.It is true that in absence of any internal damage and complication all the injuries are simple injuries.Therefore, I referred healing time of injuries as 8 days.After the examination I have no any occasion to see the patient again.I do not refer or seen the bed head ticket of the patient after admission.The patient was admitted only to avoid complication.I do not know about internal complication or damage to the internal part in the patient.17] The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding, and which finding is unexceptionable, that intention to cause death is not proved.However, the learned Sessions Judge further holds that although the intention to cause death is not proved, the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that the inflicted::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 11 injury is likely cause death.Intention or knowledge is to be gathered from the cumulative effect of several circumstances.The motive, the genesis of the altercation, the conduct of the accused, whether the incident occurred on the spur of the moment or was premeditated, the part of the body of which the injury is inflicted, the nature of the weapon and the force applied, the nature and extent of injuries are all circumstances which must be cumulatively considered to determine whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge to attract section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::18] Concededly, the incident occurred due to some altercation on the day of Rangapanchami.The accused were attempting to smear colour on the face of Rahul (P.W.6).P.W.1 Prakash objected and was assaulted by the accused.No medical evidence is produced on record to throw light on the treatment received by injured P.W.1 after he was admitted in the hospital.The only evidence on record is that of P.W.10 Dr. Mohd. Aslam Jamal who admits that the injuries were simple injuries.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 ::: apeal131.06.J.odt 12 The attending circumstances further do not conclusively suggest that the injuries were inflicted with the intention or knowledge which ingredients are sine quo non for bringing home charge under section 308 of IPC.It is trite law, that benefit of any doubt which is reasonably discernible from the evidence must go in favour of the accused.I am not persuaded to uphold the conviction of the accused under section 308 of IPC and instead the accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::19] The incident occurred more than thirteen years ago and the accused has already undergone more than thirteen months of detention as under trial and convict.I do not deem it appropriate to send the accused back to prison, at this stage.The accused is as such sentenced to detention or imprisonment already undergone.20] The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 02:05:18 :::
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,188,003 |
On the night between 22nd of March, 1982 and 23rd March 1982 at about 01-00 a.m. when the members of the family had been sleeping in their respective rooms in the house there was heard sound of knocking of doors in the western side of the covered varandah of the complainant's two-storied building.When the complainant came out he found some people striking against the door from outside with the help of an axe.It was realized that a dacoity was being committed.His elder son Kajal @ Gorachand (P.W. 4) was sleeping on the covered varandah.The dacoits charged the inmates of the house by breaking opon the door of the covered varandah but because of resistance made by P.W. 4 and his younger brother Durlav pal (P.W. 12) who was on the first floor of the house the dacoits could not immediately enter the rooms of the first floor.Some dacoits sustained injury caused by the members of the house by means of lathi.The dacoits entered into the room of the complainant (P.W. 3) and looted the following articles:-Necklace (double), eight gold plated bronze bangles, one pair of gold ear ring, two pieces of gold rings - one filled with red stone, one (1) piece of silver tora, cash of Rs.1200/-, black coloured + blue coloured trousers, blue coloured + 1 while coloured chinese shirt.Then they entered into the room of his nephew Biren and took away the articles, namely -16 gold plated bronze (churies) bangles, one bicha necklace, one English bicha necklace, one pair of gold ear ring, 3 pairs of silver nupur, 2 bronze bangles, Cash of Rs.400/-.Thereafter they looted one water pot made up of brass, one bell- metalled utensil called 'kansa' and four pairs of gold ear rings from the room of his brother Haripada Pal (P.W. 9).Amidst the happening of the incident the complainant and the members of his family could be able to apprehend one of the dacoits, namely Haladhar Nandi and he was made over to the police when police came to the spot in the morning of 23rd of July, 1983, while the other members of the gang managed to escape.On this written ejahar Garbeta Police Station Case No. 15 dated 23rd of March 1982 was registered against Haladhar Nandi.Upon completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against Haladhar Nadi and ten others under Section 395/412 IPC.This witness further identified Material Ext. I and II saying that three pairs of gold ear rings and kanpasha belong to Binapani, wife of P.W. 9 and his daughters Alpana and Chandana (Mat.Ext. I and II collectively).He identified Haladhar Nandi who was apprehended in his house and one Abani Duley, non-appellant.He further identified the gold ear rings and 'kanpasha' (Mat.Ext. I and Mat.Ext. II) saying that these ornaments belong to his mother and sisters.P.W. 16, Sakti Prasad Chanda, a police officer of Ghatal Police Station effected seizure of gold ear rings (Mat.Ext. I and II collectively) from Sukumar @ Banchu Laha and Nidhu Bag.Ext. I and II pointing out that they were seized from Sukumar Laha and Nidhu Bag.The same is the evidence of P.W. 2, Kartick Chandra Samanta.They stood the test of cross-examination and could not be shaken at the least.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sakha Datta CRA No. 302 of 1987 Haladhar Nandi & three ors.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th of May, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. V of July 1984 convicting the four appellants, namely Haladhar Nandi, Sukumar Laha, Astam Hembram and Bistu Duley under Section 395 of the IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I for 4 years on the said charge.P.W. 3, Kalipada Pal lodged an ejahar at 08-20 hrs.on 23rd of March, 1982 alleging the following incident:-The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore by order dated 11th of December, 1984 framed charges under Section 395 IPC against all the 11 accused persons including Haladhar Nandi; and under Section 412 IPC against Sukumar Laha @ Banchu and one Nidhu Bag who also were charged along with the other accused persons under Section 395 IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon completion of trial convicted Haladhar Nandi, Sukumar Laha, Astam Hembram and Bistu Duley under Section 395 IPC.Though Sukumar Laha was also charged under Section 412 IPC no separate sentence was awarded against him under Section 412 IPC.They were all sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years on account of the charge under section 395, IPC, while the other accused persons who faced trial were acquitted of the charges.There is a defence story particularly in respect of the appellant Haladhar Nandi.The story is that Haladhar Nandi and other accused persons who were convicted were known to the family of the complainant since before the date of the incident.Like P.W. 3, Kalipada Pal, Haladhar Nandi also carries on business of potatoes.Haladhar had visiting term to the house of P.W. 3 and vice versa; and a sum of Rs.3,500/- was payable in favour of Haladhar Nandi.As it appears from the evidence of D.W. 1, Nanda Dulal Pal and D.W. 2, Madhusudan Nandi who happens to be a relation of the appellant, Haladhar had come to the house of P.W. 3 on 9th Chaitra, 1388 B.S. being accompanied by D.W. 2 to meet P.W. 1 in connection with potato business.As accounts could not be settled with Kalipada Pal on the day Haladhar remained in the house of P.W. 3, while D.W. 2 returned home.Haladhar was to return back home on the next day but also he has been falsely implicated.So far as other appellants are concerned, they were known to the complainant since before the incident; and so far as appellant Bistu Duley is concerned it is the defence case that he led a labour movement and he has been prosecuted out of grudge.As regards Astam Hembram, he is said to be a man of the locality and evidence of P.W. 11, Sukhdev Marik is taken help of to substantiate the defence case that the said Astam Hembram is a man of the locality.The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and a brief narration of evidence of the witnesses would be necessary.It appears from evidence of P.W. 15, Dilip Kumar Basu, the Judicial Magistrate that he conducted T.I. Parade in respect of Sudhir Soren, Nidhu Bag, Abani Duley, Sukumar @ Banchu Laha and Kishore Bagal.P.W. 3 identified Sukumar @ Banchu Laha and P.W. 9, Haripada Pal identified Abani Duley.Another Judicial Magistrate held T.I. Parade on 21st of April, 1982 in respect of four other suspects, namely Basudev Pal, Ratan Bhuinya, Bistu Duley and Madhusudan Pratihar.None of these four suspects is appellant before us but the Magistrate who held T.I. Parade in respect of these four suspects on 21st of April, 1982 has not been examined.Again, the same learned Magistrate also conducted T.I. parade on 23rd September, 1982 in respect of Astam Hembram and Ashoke Thakur and in that T.I. Parade P.W. 3, Kalipada Pal, P.W. 4 Gorachand Pal and P.W. 12, Durlav Pal identified the appellant Astam Hembram (Ext. 5) but the Magistrate who conducted T.I. parade in respect of Astam Hembram was not examined.Although the identification Memo has been marked Ext. 5 and it could not be understood whether the defence raised or did not raise any objection to marking the identification charts or memorandum as Exbts.( Ext. 5 series).The prosecution evidence rests on two parts.There was hurled, crackers and bombs from outside his house.P.W. 4, Gorachand Pal was sleeping in the covered varandah near the western door in the ground floor.P.W. 12, Durlav Pal was in the upstairs.One of the dacoits fired from near the staircase.P.W. 4 and P.W. 12 had a fight with the dacoits.As P.W. 4 tried to capture the dacoits he was struck on his right forearm but P.W. 12 could be able to apprehend one of them who is Haladhar.Now, P.W. 3 identified in Court Bistu Duley, Sukumar Laha @ Banchu and Astam Hembram besides Haladhar Nandi.This witness identified amongst a good number of stolen gold ornaments, a pair of 'kanpasha' and a pair of gold ear rings which have been marked Mat.Ext. I and Mat.Ext. II to be the recovered stolen articles belonging to the women members of the family.P.W. 4, Gorachand Pal, the son of P.W. 3 corroborates in details as to how the incident happened saying how the appellant Haladhar Nandi would only be apprehended while other fled away.This witness identified appellant Astam Hembram who was also identified in the T.I. Parade by him.He further identified three ear rings and one 'kanpasha', Mat.Ext. I and Mat.Ext. II said to be belonging to one family member Binapani, the wife of P.W. 9 and his daughters Alpana and Chandana.P.W. 5 is Tara Sankar Roy, neighbour of P.W. 3 who having rushed to the house of P.W. 3 found Haladhar Nandi being tied up in the house and he identified the said appellant Haladhar Nandi in court.It was P.W. 3 who narrated to him the incident and the person who has apprehended gave out his name as Haladhar Nandi.Evidence of P.W. 6 Jayanta Kumar Pal, A.S.I. of Police, P.W. 7, Ramendralal Banerjee and P.W. 14, Subodh Palwan requires no mention, evidence of them being practically nil.Though Nidhu Bag has been acquitted by the learned trial court because of his non-identification by any of the witnesses emphasis has been made of him by the prosecution only to substantiate the point that there had really taken place an incident of dacoity committed by a good number of people and Nidhu Bag was one of them having sustained injuries in the hand of a member of complainant party, while P.W. 4 sustained injury as the miscreants dealt blow against him.P.W. 9, Haripada Pal, the brother of P.W. 3 corroborates P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and said that P.W. 3 and P.W. 12 had a fight with the dacoits and in the fight P.W. 3 received injury.Now this witness identified two pair of gold ear rings; one pair of gold ear ring is called 'kanpasha' and another two pairs of gold ear rings belong to his two daughters, Alpana and Chandana and the said ornaments were marked Mat.Ext. I and Mat.Ext. II collectively.In his examination-in-chief he is said that Haladhar Nandi could be apprehended and in cross-examination he has stated that the gold ornaments were taken away from his wife and the daughters.P.W. 10 is one Sakti Sadhan Pal who rushed to the house of P.W. 3 and found Haladhar Nandi having been apprehended there.This witness identified the appellant Bistu Duley in the T.I. Parade and also before the court.It was suggested to this witness that Bistu Duley took part in the labour movement in December, 1982 and he has been falsely implicated though he denied the defence suggestion.P.W. 11, Sukhdev Marik having gone to the house of P.W. 1 found Haladhar having already been apprehended.In cross-examination he stated that he knew the appellant Astam Hembram since he is a man of the locality.He is the witness who could be able to apprehend Haladhar Nandi in the T.I. Parade and also before the court.From his cross-examination it appears that Haladhar was assaulted by fists and blows.It appears from evidence of P.W. 16 that two pairs of gold ear rings were recovered from the possession of Sukumar @ Banchu and one pair of gold ear ring was recovered from Nidhu Bag at Moirapukur Crossing under P.S. Ghatal at about 5-30 a.m. on 27th of March, 1982 in presence of the witnesses against a seizure list (Ext.1/4).Now this police officer effected seizure of the ornaments from the appellant Sukumar @ Banchu and non-appellant Nidhu Bag when he was attached to Ghatal P.S. and he could be able to ascertain that they were arrested in connection with the Garbeta Police Station Case No. 15 dated 23rd of March, 1982 and intimation was sent to the Garbeta P.S.P.W. 17, Kanailal Roychowdhury is the I.O. of the case.Having thus recorded the sum total of evidence of the witnesses let us proceed to have a critical appreciation thereof.The prosecution case is based on three pillars.The first pillar is the apprehension of the appellant Haladhar Nandi by P.W. 4 and P.W. 12 in course of the incident.The second pillar is the identification of the appellants in the T.I. Parade.The third pillar is seizure of gold ornaments (Mat.Ext. I and II) from the possession of Sukumar @ Banchu Laha and one Nidhu Bag.With respect to the seizure of the gold ornaments evidence of P.W. 16 has to be read with evidence of P.W. 1, Gopal Chandra Rana and P.W. 2, Kartick Chandra Samanta.Seizure list is Ext. which reveals seizure from the possession of Sukumar and Nidhu in the morning of 27th of March, 1982 by P.W. 16 at Ghatal Moirapukur Road Crossing and the seized articles were a 'kanpasha' (gold ear ring) weighing 315 mg., one pair of big ear ring and another pair of small ear ring.P.W. 1 identified Mat.Apart from seizure of gold ornaments from Sukumar @ Banchu Laha in presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 by P.W. 16 he was also identified in the T.I. Parade and also before the court.The question arose as to non- identification of the ornaments by the members of the complainant's family as it has been argued that the female members of the house were not examined so as to have the ornaments identified.But such argument is of no avail as P.W. 9 and P.W. 12 identified Mat.The second pillar of the prosecution case centres round the apprehension of Haladhar Nandi at the time of the incident.Their evidence has been corroborated by P.W. 5, P.W. 10 and P.W.It is that Haladhar deals in potato, as P.W. 3 deals in the same commodity.There were transactions between the two.In order to settle the transactions Haladhar who is said to own about 10 or 12 bighas of land came to the house of P.W. 3 with D.W. 2, but while D.W. 2 returned back to his house Haladhar could not, as the accounts could not be settled, and instead Haladhar has been implicated falsely in this case.This defence story carries with it the least degree of probability.His placement in the T.I. Parade was not necessary because he was got caught handed by the members of the complainant's family and was detained for a number of hours whereafter he was made over to the police with the lodging of the FIR.The third pillar of the prosecution case which rests with identification of some of the accused persons and appellants in the T.I. Parade could not be proved legally.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,189,189 |
Heard on the question of admission.Perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Court below.This appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.6948/2020, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant-Bihari.Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 506-II of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the statement of the prosecutrix specially in paragaph 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13 and 15, it reveals that the appellant has forcibly committed rape with the prosecutrix but as per the MLC Report, there was no external injury found over the body of the prosecutrix.He further submits that as per the statement made by the prosecutrix, there was some negotiation between the parties for compromising the matter and also there was some monetary demand made.He also submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, it is also clear that there was some monetary dispute in the family of the present appellant and the prosecutrix.He further submits that the appellant was on bail during 2 CRA-1446-2020 the trial and prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has opposed the application and also submits that in view of the finding given by the trial Court, the present appellant is not entitled to get benefit of bail and application for suspension of sentence is liable to be dismissed.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the record, without commenting anything on merit of the case, I.A.No.6948/2020 is allowed.It is directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant-Bihari shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand Rupees Only) with a solvent surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3 rd November, 2020 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in that regard.If the doctor suspects otherwise, the appellant shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the protocol laid down by the State.List this appeal for final hearing in due course as per the scheme formulated.A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court through e-mail.Certified copy as per rules.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Nitesh NITESH PANDEY 2020.07.02 17:53:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,194,969 |
judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.140/1996 decided::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 2 Cri.The respondents herein, who are herein after referred to as accused were prosecuted in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::2) It was the case of the prosecution that on 15 th May, 1995, the accused persons entered into a quarrel with Jagdish Ram Banjare in front of the grocery shop of Yusuf Qureshi in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. and in the said quarrel so occurred, made assaults on said Jagdish, which resulted in causing death of Jagdish.3) One Yuvraj Parasram Rathod lodged a report of the said incident to Police Station, Naldurg, whereupon crime was registered against the accused and the investigation was set in motion.Initially offence registered against the accused was under section 307 of IPC.However, after death of Jagdish because of the injuries caused to him in the alleged occurrence, the offence which was initially registered under Section 307 of IPC was converted into the offence under Section 302 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::occurrence; prepared spot panchanama as well as inquest panchanama of the death body of deceased Jagdish; dead body of Jagdish was forwarded for its post mortem examination.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of necessary witnesses; collected necessary samples for their chemical analysis and after completing all the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused in the court of JMFC at Naldurg.5) Since the offence charged against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC, Naldurg committed the said case to the Court of Sessions.The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::prosecution examined as many 22 witnesses.The defense of the accused was of total denial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after having assessed the evidence on record, acquitted all the accused by giving them benefit of doubt.Aggrieved by, the State has preferred the present appeal.7) Shri S.M.Ganachari, learned APP appearing for the State, criticized the impugned judgment on various grounds.The learned APP submitted that despite ample evidence on record against the accused persons showing their complicity in knowing and intentionally causing death of deceased Jagdish, the learned Sessions Court on trifle grounds has acquitted the accused.8) The learned APP, taking us through the evidence on record, submitted that there were eye- witnesses to the alleged incident and their evidence was duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record and other circumstances.The learned APP further submitted that recovery of weapons was also duly proved by the::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal 448-2002 prosecution and the injuries caused to deceased Jagdish, which ultimately resulted in causing his death, were also duly proved by examining the necessary witnesses in that regard.The learned APP further submitted that motive was also brought on record by the prosecution and in such circumstances; the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have endorsed clean acquittal in favour of the accused persons.The learned APP further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution needs re- appreciation by this Court.The learned APP further submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt proves the guilt of the accused, and as such, all the accused are liable to be held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read 34 of IPC and needs to be adequately punished.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::9) The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents - accused supported the impugned judgment and order.The learned Counsel submitted that the court below has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in the finding of facts recorded by::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal 448-2002 the trial court.The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::10) After having heard the submissions advanced by the learned APP and learned Counsel appearing for the accused and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, it does not appear to us that the trial court has committed any error in recording the acquittal of the accused.The material on record shows that three witnesses viz. PW 1 - Yuvraj Parasram Rathod; PW4 - Motabai Ram Banjare and PW 15-Kusumbai Raju Chavan were posed as eye-witnesses of the alleged assaults made on deceased Jagdish by the accused persons.One Rajendra Sakhare - PW 3 was also stated to be an eye- witness, but, he pleaded total ignorance about the alleged incident.In so far as evidence of PW 1 - Yuvraj; PW 4 - Motabai and PW 15 - Kusumbai, is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has observed that they have not corroborated the facts stated by each other.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::observations made by the trial judge are erroneous or contrary to the evidence on record.As has been observed by the learned Trial Judge, PW 1 - Yuvraj appeared on the scene of occurrence bit later and possibly did not eye witness the accused making assaults on deceased Jagdish.11) PW 4 - Motabai in her evidence has deposed that she was in her house and after hearing the quarrel came out of her house and reached on the spot.She has also deposed that, she witnessed the accused persons making assault on deceased Jagdish.However, in the cross-examination, PW 4 - Motabai has candidly admitted that her house is at such a distance from place of occurrence which can be covered within the time which required for preparing two Jawar Rotis (Jawar Bhakaris).The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that for preparing two Jawar Rotis, at least 5-10 minutes may be required.The learned Trial Judge has further observed that if the house of PW 4 - Motabai may be at the distance of 5-10 minutes of walk from the alleged occurrence, there was no possibility of PW 4-Motabai eye-witnessing the::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal 448-2002 assaults made on deceased Jagdish.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::12) The third eye-witness Kusumbai (PW 15) had deposed in her testimony before the court that when she was returning to her house after completing the work, she saw the crowd in front of the STD booth and also heard noise and when she went near the crowd, she saw the accused persons making assaults on deceased Jagdish.In her examination-in-chief, though Kusumbai did state that she eye-witnessed Kashinath giving blow on head of Jagdish and Uttam by using tommy; in the cross- examination she has admitted that she walked away from the crowd and she cannot certainly tell as to exactly what was going in the crowd.Moreover, Kusumbai did not tell the police as to when her statement was recorded that Uttam gave blow with the help of tommy on the head of Jagdish.The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly observed that the evidence of Kusumbai could not have been relied upon to pose conviction of the accused for the serious offence of murder.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::specific case of the prosecution that the injury on the head of Jagdish was caused by accused Kashinath with the help of a wooden log which has resulted in causing death of Jagdish.However, the Medical Officer - Dr.Shankar Bhanudas Kasbe (PW 14) has clearly opined that there was no possibility of causing lacerated wound with the help of the wooden log.The said wooden log was shown to the Medical Officer during the course of his evidence.As has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 25 of the judgment, the Medical Officer was quite firm on his opinion that the injury, which was noticed to be fatal, was not possible with the help of the wooden log.It has come in the evidence of the Medical Officer that CLW, in question, was having irregular edges.Further, the wooden log so seized by the prosecution during the course of the investigation, was sent for its chemical analysis and the report received thereof reveals that no blood was detected on the said wooden log.It has to be further stated that in his evidence the Medical Officer Dr. Kasbe::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 10 Cri.Crime No. 101/1995 was registered on a cross-complaint filed by Kashinath Reku Pawar arising out of the same incident.During the course of hearing of the present Sessions Trial, the said axe, though it was seized in Crime No.101/1995, was called for by the Court and it was shown to Dr. Kasbe during the course of his evidence.The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that though it has come on record through some of the prosecution witnesses that Uttam Jadhav made an assault on deceased Jagdish with the help of tommy, the said evidence has not been corroborated by the circumstances as well as the medical evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::14) After having considered the entire evidence on record, what is transpired is the fact that there was a scuffle between the persons, who are the accused in Sessions Case No. 140/1996 and the persons who are the::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 ::: 11 Cri.In Sessions Case No. 140/1996, it was the case of the prosecution that since Jagdish had refused to marry with daughter of accused - Babu Reku Pawar, the accused were annoyed and that annoyance has resulted in making assaults by them on deceased Jagdish causing his death.It has to be stated that Babu Reku Pawar (accused No.1) and Kashinath Reku Pawar (accused No.2) are real brothers of mother of deceased Jagdish; whereas accused No.4 - Reku Gangaram Pawar is father of mother of deceased Jagdish.Accused No.3 - Uttam Hira Jadhav is the brother-in-law of father of deceased Jagdish.Thus, the accused are the close relatives of deceased Jagdish.As against it, the another complaint was filed by Kashinath Reku Pawar against deceased Jagdish; Yuvraj Parasram Rathod; Ashok Ram Banjare and Raju Tukaram Rathod that the accused unnecessarily picked up quarrel with him when he was sitting in front of the grocery shop of Yusuf Qureshi.It was alleged by him that he was assaulted by Yuvraj Rathod by an axe.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::though it appears that there was scuffle between Babu Reku Pawar and others on one side and Yuvraj Parasram Rathod on the other side, no such evidence has come on record in both the Sessions cases so as to hold the accused persons in the respective Sessions cases guilty for the offences with which they are charged.There appears no substance in the appeal filed by the State.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2018 01:20:58 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,195,605 |
Brief facts of the prosecution case, as discernible from record, are that on 23.09.2002 at 08.05 P.M., informant Chotey s/o Roshan Teli lodged a written report at Police Station- Asmoli, District- Moradabad with the complaint that about seven months ago, he got his daughter Nasreen married, as per wedding rituals of Islam, to one Shakir s/o Afsar r/o Village Bela ki Madhaiya, Police Station- Asmoli, District- Moradabad.He had given dowry to the best of his capacity.Dowry articles included a watch, bicycle, bed, clothes, utensils, jewellery, etc. Two months thereafter, Nasreen's husband Shakir, her brothers-in-law Mohammad and Babu, her father-in-law Afsar, her sister-in-law Mehroj and her mother-in-law Smt. Dilwari started demanding dowry from her and also assaulted her.After three months of the marriage, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and was told to bring a motorcycle as dowry.But the informant (Nasreen's father) and his wife were not in a position to give a motorcycle as dowry.For the next three months, Nasreen lived in her paternal home.About 15 days before, her husband Shakir, her father-in-law Afsar, her mother-in-law Smt. Dilwari came to her village and asked co-villagers Liyakat Hussain s/o Allah Baksh and Amin s/o Kallan to send back Nasreen to her in-law's home, but Nasreen refused to go back and she was afraid of getting beaten up by her in-laws in connection with dowry demand.But she was convinced by the villagers and was send back to her in-law's home.Today, Dr. Saudas of village Bela ki Madhaiya came to the house of the informant and told him that his daughter was being murdered at about 04.00 P.M. Shakir and his family members are also absconding.Then the informant along with some co-villagers reached village Bela ki Madhaiya and came to know that his daughter Nasreen was first strangulated and was then assaulted with blows of 'daranti' (sickle) by her husband and in-laws, due to which she died.Report be lodged and action be taken.The written report is on record and the same is marked as Ex.On the basis of written report of informant Chotey, a chik First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged on the same day (23.09.2009) at 20.05 hours (08.05 P.M.) at Police Station- Asmoli, District- Moradabad under Section 304B IPC against accused Shakir, Afsar, Mohammad, Babu, Smt. Mehroj and Smt. Dilwari.The chick F.I.R. is on record and the same is marked as Ex.Ka.11 Thereafter, investigation of the case was started.Investigation of the case was taken over by Investigating Officer C.O. Ram Murti Yadav, who proceeded to the spot and after inspection, prepared relevant papers, viz. site plan (Ex.Ka.9), inquest report (panchayatnama) (Ex.Ka.3), recovery memo of blood-stained 'gadda', 'darati' and blood-stained strip of 'charpai' (Ex.According to the principle laid down by Hon'ble The Apex Court, once prosecution proved that where death of woman has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance within seven years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and the relatives of her husband soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry, then heavy burden of proof lies upon accused to adduce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.P.W.1 Chotey in his statement before the Court has admitted that no demand of dowry was made by Shakir, husband of the deceased or any of his relatives at the time of marriage.According to this witness, two months after the marriage the accused appellants and Shakir, the husband of the deceased started demanding motorcycle from the deceased and consequently assaulted and harassed the deceased for fulfilment of the aforesaid demand of dowry.Three months after her marriage, Smt. Nasreen was expelled from her matrimonial home by the accused-appellants after having been assaulted by her husband and the other accused-appellants.Today, there are very few families which have a joint living.Nowadays, every person likes to live separately from his brother, sister and other family members.In such a social system, unless specific allegation has been made, except the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, no other relative of the husband should be made responsible for demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment.In the present case, except husband Shakir, no other person was beneficiary of demand of a motorcycle as dowry.There was no reason for the accused-appellants to demand a motorcycle as dowry from deceased Smt. Nasreen.Smt. Nasreen lived at her parental home for three months.After that, she went to her matrimonial home.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad, in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2003 (State of U.P. Vs.Afsar and others) arising out of Crime No. 477 of 2002 Police Station- Asmoli, District- Moradabad, whereby accused-appellants- Mohammad, Babu, Smt. Mehroj and Smt. Dilwari have been convicted and sentenced as follows:(a) Ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').(b) Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, two months' additional imprisonment under Section 498A IPC.(c) Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Ka.13), recovery memo of bangles (Ex.Ka.14).In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, it was thought proper to send the dead body for autopsy.In the process, relevant papers were prepared, viz. letter to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka.6) and letter to R.I. (Ex.Ka.4).6. Post mortem on the cadaver of the deceased Smt. Nasreen was conducted on 24.09.2002 at about 03.15 P.M. by Dr. Megh Singh, who noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :-Multiple penetrating wound, 7.0 in numbers present over front of neck - in the area of 7 x 5 cms., the size of largest wound is 3.5 cm.x 1.0 cm.x Trachea deep and the smallest size of wound is 1.0 cm.x 1/2 cm.x Trachea deep.Right sided - carotid artery ruptured and lacerated.Contusion 20 cm.x 3 cm.Gravid uterus with dead female foetus having bodily length - 28 cms., weight- 520 gms., age about six months was found.Opinion: In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Death of deceased is possible on 23.09.2002 at 04.00The postmortem report is on record and the same is marked as Ex.After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against accused-appellants- Mohammad, Babu, Smt. Mehroj and Smt. Dilwari under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet is on record and the same is marked as Ex.Shakir, husband of deceased Smt. Nasreen was juvenile in conflict with law, therefore, his case was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board for trial.Thereafter, it was made over for trial and disposal to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad.Accused were heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused.Therefore, it framed charges against them under Sections 304B IPC, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused examined seven prosecution witnesses, out of whom, informant Chotey (father of deceased) (P.W.1), Liyakat Hussain (P.W.2) were examined as witnesses of fact, whereas Dr. Megh Singh (P.W.3), Rajeev Pandey (tehsildar) (P.W.4), Circle Officer Ram Murti Yadav (I.O.) (P.W.5), HCP Ganga Singh (head moharir) (P.W.6) and S.I. Dhirendra Kumar Singh (P.W.7) were examined as formal witnesses.Except as above, no other witness was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein, they claimed to have been falsely implicated.In turn, the defence examined Saudas Singh (D.W.1), Munbbar (D.W.2), Yusuf Hussain (D.W.3) and Senior Supply Inspector P.K. Sharma (D.W.4) as defence witnesses.Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit passed aforesaid finding of conviction and passed the impugned judgment and order.Aggrieved by the order of learned trial Judge, the accused-appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal.Heard Sri Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh.It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that the appellants were living separately from Shakir and his wife deceased Nasreen.The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.Without properly appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned order and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.Apart from arguing on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the accused-appellants have completed more than seven years of their sentence, therefore, their sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by them.Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and as such, the same is liable to be upheld.To appreciate the arguments of the parties and also the evidence, it is necessary to look into the statutory provisions of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Ka.2 and statement of Dr. Megh Singh, cause of death of deceased Smt. Nasreen was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Death of the deceased was possible on 23.09.2002 at about 04.00From the perusal of postmortem report, it appears that deceased Smt. Nasreen was murdered brutally as there were multiple penetrating wounds, seven in number, present on the front of her neck.Learned counsel for the accused suggested to P.W.1 Chotey that his sons-in-law Sharawat and Liyakat have caused death of Smt. Nasreen.This shows that death of deceased is homicidal and not suicidal.Prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Chotey (father of deceased) and P.W.2 Liyakat Hussain have proved this fact that marriage of Smt. Nasreen was solemnized with Shakir seven months before her death.This fact has also been admitted by the appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that Smt. Nasreen died within seven years of her marriage and her death was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances.Now, it has to be seen that soon before her death, deceased Smt. Nasreen was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and his relatives in connection with demand of dowry.Thereafter, Smt. Nasreen started living at her parental home and stayed there for three months.15 days before the date of occurrence, Smt. Nasreen went to her matrimonial home in the company of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.There is no allegation in the testimony of P.W.1 that the husband Shakir and the accused-appellants demanded dowry or harassed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry in this period of 15 days.25. P.W.1 Chotey has further stated that the demand of dowry by way of a motorcycle was made by the accused-appellants only in the third month after marriage and in connection with the same his daughter Smt. Nasreen was harassed.P.W. Chotey has also admitted in his statement that at the time of marriage, he had given a watch, bicycle, bed and clothes, etc. No demand of dowry was made by any of the in-laws at the time of marriage.The demand of motorcycle by the in-laws, after two months of marriage, from a person who has given only a watch, bicycle, bed and clothes neither appears to be natural nor probable.Another aspect of the matter which further requires to be taken note of is that 15 days before the date of occurrence, Shakir, husband of the deceased along with his father Afsar and mother Smt. Dilwari came to the residence of P.W.1 and requested P.W.1 Chotey to send his daughter to her matrimonial home.Accordingly, Smt. Nasreen went to her matrimonial home.Even at this time, no demand of dowry is alleged to have been made.Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty by her in-laws during this period of 15 days of occurrence, or any demand of dowry was made.Here it must be noted that no specific role has been assigned to the accused-appellants- Mohammad, Babu, Smt. Mehroj and Smt. Dilwari for demand of dowry.Name of accused-appellant who demanded motorcycle as dowry has not been specified by the prosecution.General allegation of demanding dowry has been made against husband, his father, mother, brothers and wives of brothers ('bhabhi').Our social system is changing at a rapid pace.In the 21st century, the concept of joint family has totally changed.15 days thereafter, she died.There is also no evidence on record to show that in between three months and 15 days, any demand of dowry had been made to her or she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband Shakir or accused-appellants.31. P.W.1 Chotey has admitted in his cross-examination that accused-appellants Mohammad, Babu and Smt. Mehroj lived in separate rooms.When questioned by learned counsel for the accused whether accused Mohammad and Babu lived separately from deceased Smt. Nasreen and her husband Shakir, P.W.1 Chotey replied that this fact is not known to him.P.W.5 Investigating Officer C.O. Ram Murti Yadav has shown in site plan Ex.Ka.9 that the houses of accused-appellants Mohammad and Babu were separate from that of Shakir.33. D.W.4 P.K. Sharma, Senior Supply Inspector has proved this fact that accused-appellant Babu, his wife Smt. Mehroj and his children had a separate ration card.This also shows that accused-appellant Babu was living separately from Shakir.34. P.W.1 Chotey admitted this fact that he has two wives.From his first wife, he has four daughters, all of whom have been married and from his second wife, he has one daughter Smt. Nasreen.He has no male issue.He was intended to distribute his landed property amongst his daughters equally.Liyakat lived with him and took care of his property.Learned counsel for accused suggested P.W.1 Chotey that Liyakat and Sharawat have committed murder of Smt. Nasreen to grab her property.But this suggestion has been denied by P.W.1 Chotey.On the basis of this fact, learned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased Smt. Nasreen might have been murdered by these two persons (Sharawat and Liyakat).But, only on the basis of these suggestions and motive, it cannot be presumed that Sharawat and Liyakat had murdered Smt. Nasreen.Smt. Nasreen was murdered in her room.That room was in the house of her husband Shakir.It is the duty of husband Shakir to explain the cause of death of Smt. Nasreen, which is not explained by him.Accused-appellants Mohammad, Babu and Smt. Mehroj were living in a separate house from deceased Smt. Nasreen and her husband Shakir.They might have the knowledge about cause of death of deceased Smt. Nasreen, being her neighbours and it is also expected from them to explain the circumstances under which deceased Smt. Nasreen has been murdered.The Investigating Officer must have tried to investigate the case, thoroughly and properly, to come to a conclusion as to who had committed the murder and the motive behind it.He should not have restricted the investigation only up to dowry death.Unfortunately, he failed to perform his duties properly.For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has not shown, even by preponderance of probability, that soon before her death, deceased Smt. Nasreen was treated with cruelty or harassed by accused-appellants Mohammad, Babu, Smt. Mehroj and Smt. Dilwari in connection with demand of dowry.The trial court while recording conviction against the appellants failed to properly appreciate the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case and recorded erroneous finding of conviction, which cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Sessions Judge, Moradabad for its compliance.Let the lower court's record be remitted back to the court concerned.Order Date :- 21.12.2017 I. Batabyal [Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.]
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,119,949 |
And In the matter of: Bikash Choumal ....petitioner.Mr. Pratim Dasgupta Mr. Prabhat Srivastava ...for the petitioner.Pursuant to the request from the Court, an attempt was made by advocates representing the parties to resolve the dispute between the married couple, but no positive result has been achieved.The de facto complainant seeks a direction for the immediate return of her stridhan articles.The law will take its own course in such regard upon the investigating agency conducting an appropriate inquiry.2 It appears that the de facto complainant has been constrained to move out of the matrimonial home.The petitioner should pay the maintenance for the wife.The petitioner is agreeable in principle to make such payment.The petitioner should pay Rs.12,000/- per month on account of maintenance beginning November, 2018 and payable by the 26th day of each month.Unless the petitioner continues making payments in a similar manner for the subsequent months, the wife will be entitled to seek cancellation of the husband's bail.In the event the wife is awarded any alimony or maintenance or the like by any other appropriate forum, the payments made in terms of this order will be adjusted against the same.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made 3 available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 4
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,201,726 |
This is the first application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.226/2017 registered at Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar (M.P.) for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307 and 302 of IPC & section 25/27 of Arms Act.The prosecution story in short is that on 3/6/2017 complainant Balmukund Goutam lodged a report against applicant along with 13 other co- accused persons for allegedly wrongfully restraining the complainant and his companions at Ghatabillod while the complainants were coming from a function.The complainant who was travelling in a Scorpio car was thus stopped and the accused persons damaged the Scorpio Car, breaking its glasses.The complainant some how came back and while he was going on to lodge a report the accused persons stopped them on the way and the applicant Chandan Singh and other co-accused persons fired at the complainant party with fire arms.Pintu Jaiswal and Bablu suffered gun shot injuries, other co-accused also indulged in inflicting stick blows causing hurt to Vishal and Ankursingh.FIR No.226/2017 was registered under the provisions of Secs.341, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC along with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Lateron Bablu Choudhary succumbed to his injuries and offence which was registered was enhanced to Section 302 of the IPC.Apart from Bablu, Pintu Jaiswal has also suffered bullet injuries.All the other co-accused persons, who were wielding weapons attacked the two Scorpio car, one Safari car and one Indica Car.FIR was reported at Police Station, Betma.In this matter the report lodged by complainant against the applicant is Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 12/02/2020 23:52:55 2 MCRC-4823-2020 the first one being Crime No.217/2017 and the second one being Crime No.226/2017 which pertains to this incident in which Bablu Choudhary who had died.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.There is no independent conclusive evidence, witness or statements enclosed in the challan against the applicant.The applicant has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum of co- accused.No specific role has been played by the applicant in the alleged offence.He also submits that as many as five firearms were seized from the possession of the complainant party whereas only one 12 bore gun has been seized from the co-accused Chandan Singh.There were as many as 4-5 co- accused armed with gun then the applicant cannot be the actual person, who fired the gun shot on the deceased.He also submits that ballistic report has been received after two years delay by the prosecution.In the FSL report injury was caused by rifle type arm.In this matter, co-accused Chandan Singh Rajput has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court at Indore Bench vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 and 12 other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the trial court.It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by this Court.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,205,227 |
None for the complainant.This second Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (in short Act, 1989) against the order dated 4.12.2017 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri in Bail Application No.232/2017 by which the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail has been rejected.The first criminal appeal for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.2.2018 passed in CRA No.986/2018 with liberty to revive after a month.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,206 |
Kusuma Ankama Rao (hereinafter referred to as`accused') was a resident of Pedaveedhi of Gudivada Town.Hewas a fruit vendor.Sankara Rao (PW-1) and Rama Swamy(PW-2) are the son and husband of the deceased respectively.The deceased stayed with her family in the house of M.Simhachalam (PW-3) in Padamata Veedhi at Gudivada.Accused was having illegal intimacy with the deceased.On22.2.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused met PW-1(son ofthe deceased) and asked him to get a quarter bottle of liquorand a beedi packet and paid Rs.50/- for the purpose.Accordingly, PW-1 brought the said items.Thereafter, theaccused asked the whereabouts of the deceased.PW-1 tookthe accused to Gopalakrishna (A.C.) theatre, where the 2 deceased was working as a labourer on that day.On theirway to the theatre, they found the deceased and some otherscoming in the opposite direction.At that point of time, theaccused talked with the deceased; and the accused, deceasedand PW-1 went to the by-pass road leading to Eluru andthereafter they further went to the black gram field of one N.Narasimha Rao.At that point of time the accused asked PW-1not to follow them and to stop there.Accordingly, PW-1 waitedthere for half an hour or so and as the deceased and accuseddid not return, he returned to the hotel where he was working.Thereafter, he went to the house late in the night.In themorning when he found that her mother had not returnedhome, he stated the above facts to his father.In themeanwhile, they heard the people saying that there was adead body in the field of N. Narsimha Rao.Then PWs 1 and 2went there and saw the dead body of the deceased and PW-2asked PW-1 to give complaint to the police.Accordingly, PW-1went to Town Police, Gudivada and gave Ex.P-1 report.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court), Machilipatnam had found the accused guiltyand convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life andfine.Theinvestigating officer (PW-12) on receipt of the FIR went to the 3 place of offence and conducted Panchanama of scene ofoffence and thereafter held inquest over the dead body of thedeceased.He also examined the witnesses and seized thetowel and other material objects.In the meanwhile, theaccused made an extra judicial confession before PW-6, thevillage Administrative Officer to the effect that he hadcommitted murder of the deceased by strangulation.Immediately, thereafter PW-6 recorded the statement of theaccused duly attested the same by PW-8, the village servant.He took the accused to the Police Station along with thereport.The C.I. of police examined Village AdministrativeOfficer.Thereafter, thecase was made over to the learned VI Additional District andSessions Judge, Machilipatnam for trial and disposal in 4 accordance with law.In order to establish its version, prosecution examined12 witnesses and marked as Exh. P-1 to P-14 documents andM.Os. 1 to 19 were also marked.The trial Court afterconsidering the evidence on record found the accused guiltyand sentenced him as afore-stated.The conviction waschallenged before the High Court.The stand before the HighCourt was that the prosecution case was based oncircumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted donot establish the guilt of the accused.The State on the otherhand referred to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the extrajudicial confession made before Village Administrative Officer(PW-6) to the effect that accused and the deceased were lastseen together, and the evidence clearly established the guilt ofthe accused.The High Court accepted the stand of the Stateand dismissed the appeal.The so called extra judicialconfession was before a stranger.Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the otherhand submitted that the three witnesses i.e. PW 1 (son of thedeceased) PWs 4 and 5 had seen the deceased and theaccused going together and, thereafter the dead body wasrecovered.The Village Administrative Officer was not astranger but he was incharge of the village and was a personof authority in that sense.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,208,823 |
2).The petitioner in the first petition is respondent no.1 to the second petition.They were married under the Shariyat Law.On 16th January, 2007 a girl child was born from the wedlock.The marital tie between the two stands severed by declaration of "Talaq".However, they continue to be related to each other through their daughter.Hence, they shall hereinafter be referred to as "the father" and "the mother".Both the proceedings also refer to the mother of the father.She will hereinafter be referred to as "the grandmother".At the time of divorce, the custody of the daughter was with the mother.daughter to be given to the father from the date of filing of the consent terms.Clauses-2 to 5 thereof, record arrangements for access to the mother which include weekend access, vacation access, access in school and access over telephone.The father was a divorcee when he married her.Later, he contracted a third marriage which also has ended in divorce.The mother denies that, she was divorced by the petitioner in December, 2010 as alleged by the father.As regards the reason for filing the consent terms, the mother alleges that whenever the father was to have access to the child, he would visit the residence of the mother accompanied by grandmother and create a ruckus so as to embarrass and harass the mother.She was threatened that, if she did not handover custody of the daughter, she and her family members would suffer dire consequences.The threat was actually put into practice by the father.On 6 th May, 2012 when the father and the grandmother had visited the residence of the mother for picking up the child for weekly access, the child in the presence of the father, had wished Hadi, the brother of the mother "best of luck"After hearing this, the father and the grandmother went to the local police station and lodged a frivolous complaint against the mother, her brother Hadi and her mother.The police picked up Hadi and detained him in custody for the whole night.With great difficulty, the mother got him released in the morning after which he went for the interview.Over the period of time, the nuisance created by the father and the grandmother increased to such an extent that even the neighbours of the mother started complaining after each visit for the access, making the mothers' life miserable.The father called up the relatives of the mother and threatened that if he did not get custody of the daughter he would make the life of the mother and her family more miserable.He would spoil the career of Hadi, and not spare even the distant relatives and neighbours.When the things went beyond the capacity of the mother, she succumbed to the pressure and the consent terms came to be filed.9).The acts of contempt alleged by the mother are that, after the initial few occasions when the father adhered to the consent terms, he gradually stopped permitting the daughter to talk to the mother over phone.Even when the daughter came over the phone, the mother could make out that she was talking under pressure.Only because she had no will to fight, she accepted the change.When the mother tried to contact him on the two cell numbers, he did not pick up the phone.The mother then tried to contact him through her Advocate.The clerk of the Advocate when sought to serve a letter upon the father, his premises were found locked and the letter could not be delivered.The mother then became anxious and approached Bandra Police Station with the help of Bhiwandi Shaher Mahila Adhyaksha and requested the local police authorities to accompany her for getting access to the daughter.She hugged the mother very tightly and started crying.But as soon she saw the father, she removed the hands from the mother's shoulder.He baldly, without stating details, alleged that in the months of June-July, 2014, the daughter started complaining and showed disturbed behaviour.The impression gathered by the psychologist from the tests as mentioned in the report annexed to the affidavit reads as under:"Impression: Clinical synthesis directs towards anxiety due to physical harm and affective disturbances that interferes in her attention process and expressed through somatic problems.31).Despite the abovementioned conduct, the father was asked, by way of an opportunity to purge the contempt, whether he was willing to handover custody of the daughter to the mother.JUDGMENT :-1).Though the acts constituting contempt, alleged in the two petitions, are distinct and different, the background from which they arise is same.Also there are common contentions involved.The petitions have been heard together.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::Therefore, the father filed Civil Misc.Being aggrieved by the order, the father preferred First Appeal No.102 of 2010 in this Court.During the pendency of the proceedings, various interim orders as regards the access including the overnight access and vacation access to the father were passed.On 16 th April, 2013 the parties signed consent terms which were taken on record on 17 th April, 2013 and the First Appeal disposed off in terms of the consent terms.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::Clauses-6 and 8 are the agreements about the passport of daughter and financial arrangement for her and Clause-7 is the agreement arrived at between the two relating to various proceedings filed against each other.4).In the first petition, the mother alleges willful and deliberate violation of Clauses-2 to 5 of the consent terms by the father and by the second petition, the father essentially alleges violation of Clause-7 of the consent terms by the mother.These clauses read as under :-Appellant shall give access of their daughter Reeba to Respondent of every first half major vacation for Diwali, X'mas and Summer Vacation of the School where Reeba is taking education.Appellant shall give access of child on every first and third weekend of every month i.e. from Saturday at 10 a.m. to Sunday at 5 p.m., to Respondent, except during Reeba's second half major vacation of School for Diwali, X'mas, and Summer.For giving access as contemplated in clauses 2 and 3 above, appellant should pick-up and drop Reeba from Respondent's residence from 4th, Nisampur, Balla Compound, Bhiwandi.Drop will be between 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and pick up will be between 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on such scheduled dates.Whenever Respondent comes to Mumbai, she ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 5/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 will be at liberty to meet Reeba at any place in Mumbai without any interference from Appellant or his family members.Appellant shall allow Respondent to talk to Reeba over phone every day.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::Before adverting to the acts of contempt alleged by the parties against each other, it is necessary to refer to some of the allegations made by them against each other as regards the past events which will have some bearing on the two petitions.6).Each side has pleaded a different case as regards the reasons for the marital discord, as well as, for filing the consent terms in the First Appeal.According to the father, the marital discord between the parties was on account of "criminal antecedents" of the family of the mother and her continuous misbehaviour.The reason stated for filing of the consent terms was that, the daughter was more attached to the father and to her ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 6/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 grandmother.Secondly, the mother was in a hurry to marry another person.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::7).The mother, on the other hand, alleges that the reason for the marital strain between the two, was the ignoring, battering and humiliating attitude of the father and the grandmother.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::as he was to appear for an interview at the airport on the next day.The father did not hand over custody of the child for weekly access in the months of September and October without any explanation.Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the father had furnished two cell numbers to the mother to enable her to contact ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 8/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 him or the daughter for the purpose of access.But whenever the mother gave a call, the cell phone was either switched off or was not picked up by the father.The mother, at times, was constrained to take help of local police station to contact the father.The letter also suggested that, the mother should take vacation access in the second half of the vacation as the child needed some dental medical attention.The mother was reluctant to accept the change since the father had already flouted the order for weekly access on four previous occasions.When the mother reached the residence of the father, he and the daughter were not at home.The grandmother who was present in the house scolded the mother and the constable and ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 9/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 asked them not to visit the house again.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::10).The mother became desperate and visited the school of the daughter, only to be told by the School Principal that, the father had given instructions, not to permit the mother to meet the daughter.The Principal on noticing the distraught condition of the mother called the father on his cell phone and informed him of the incident.The father then visited the school and the mother was permitted to meet the daughter only in his presence.In that meeting, the daughter repeated three times that, "Papa aur dadi ne aap se milne mana kiya hai, woh marenge".When the mother tried to handover a gift to the daughter, she again repeated "Dadi marenge, Papa gussa karenge".She appeared very depressed and scared.In the contempt petition, in addition to the prayer for committal of the father, the mother sought return of custody of the daughter by setting aside the consent terms.11).The acts of contempt alleged by the father, on the part of the mother are, (i) willful and deliberate violation of the consent terms and the undertakings therein, more particularly, Clause-7 thereof, (ii) false and contumacious statements in Contempt Petition No. 509 of 2013 which are allegedly contrary to the record of the case and have the effect of lowering the esteem of the Court in the eyes of law and (iii) not permitting the father to fetch the child after completion of access on scheduled time, at times not remaining present at the house when the child is taken to the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 10/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 residence of the respondent.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::The father has filed in all six affidavits to reply the petition.The first affidavit is dated 4 th December, 2013 in which he denies the conduct alleged against him.Instead, he alleges the very conduct against the mother and her family, of creating ruckus at the time of access.He further alleges that, the mother and her family have a criminal background.Similarly access of 15th June, 2013 was alleged to have been given on the next weekend.The access on 17th August, 2013 was not given because the house of the mother was allegedly found locked.The access on 21 st August, 2013 and 5th October, 2013 was not given for the reason that the Saturday was declared as working day by the school and the daughter was to participate in a competition.But no explanation is offered for not sending the daughter for Sunday.No access was given during Diwali vacation on the pretext of appointment with dentist and receipt of letter dated 2nd November, 2013 from one, Ramesh Patil.According to the father, by that letter he was warned that his life and the life of the grandmother would be in danger if they met the mother.As regards the incident in the school, the father denies the same.13).The third affidavit dated 21 st August, 2014 is to allege perjury against the mother for failure to withdraw criminal complaint bearing No.1605/PW/2010 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate 12th Court at Bandra.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::14).The next affidavits of the father dated 10 th November, 2014, 11th November, 2014 and 25th February, 2016 concern the orders dated 14th September, 2014 and 5th November, 2014 passed in these petitions and the explanations offered by him.The contents of these affidavits would be discussed later.The last affidavit is a joint affidavit of the father and the grandmother.15).During the pendency of these petitions, several orders were passed relating to the access to the daughter.Some of these orders, would also throw light upon the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties.16).The order of 18th July, 2014 was passed on the Civil Application filed by the father for modification of the consent order dated 17th April, 2013 in the First Appeal contending that when the consent terms were entered between the parties, the daughter was studying in a school at Bhiwandi.She was thereafter shifted to a school at Bandra.This resulted in change in the school schedule for the daughter.This Court, disapproved the shifting of the daughter to another school by the father without consulting the mother but ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 12/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 modified the order to suit the new schedule by keeping all the terms intact.On 10th October, 2014 the mother had complained to the Court that the father was not complying with the order of access passed earlier.On 13th October, 2014, Advocate Mr. Shafiq appearing for the father had made a statement that, the daughter was with the grandparents.Instead of bringing the daughter to the Court, on that day, the father produced Certificate dated 11th October, 2014 from one, Dr. Yaseen D. Mirza certifying that the child was under his treatment for Exacerbation of Bronchitis Allergic and was advised bedrest atleast for one week.The Court refused to believe the Certificate.The further orders passed dated 1st October, 2014 and 13th October, 2014 were also not complied with for no genuine reason.It expressed a categorical opinion that the father apparently is a habitual contemnor and has no regards for the orders of the Court.The order permitted the mother to have access to the child at the residence where it was residing, by taking assistance of the police.The Court also suo-moto issued notice for contempt to the father calling upon him to show cause why action be not initiated against him for deliberate non-compliance of the court's orders.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::17).On the next date of the mater i.e. 5 th November, 2014 the father was absent.On all the dates, though the house was not locked from outside and the sounds of television were heard from inside, nobody had opened the door.The mother and the police had confirmed from the neighbours that the father and his family were inside the house.They had deliberately not opened the door.This fact was evidenced by the Station House Diary of the Bandra Police Station.This Court then directed Senior Inspector of Bandra Police Station to visit the father and verify whether the daughter is staying in the premises or not.On the adjourned date, the child was present alongwith the father and the grandmother.The mother was also present.The Learned Judge presiding over the Bench, then interviewed the child.In it's order passed on that date, the Bench observed that, the child was completely tutored against the mother.The child had on her own told the Court that, in the month of December she was not available as the family was going out and on Sundays she cannot be available because she had to meet her friends.She also mentioned that, when she was five years old the younger brother of the mother used to pinch her all over the body and also the private parts and this fact was known to the mother.The child also said that, she does not love her mother but loves only "her papa" and "grandma".But at the same time, the learned Judge noticed that the child was very comfortable with the mother.It then adjourned the petitions to the next ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 14/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 day i.e. 11th November, 2014, so that the mother could meet the daughter at least in the court.On the adjourned date, the father through his Advocate tendered unconditional apology for non- compliance of the orders of the court and expressed his readiness and willingness to obey the same in future.He however broke his word on the very next date of the access.He preferred Special Leave Petition to the Apex Court against the order and took the daughter alongwith him to Delhi.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::In his last two affidavits i.e. the affidavit dtd.10 th November, 2014 and the joint affidavit dtd.25 th February, 2014, the father made certain serious allegations against the mother and her brother, Hadi.She needs behaviour modification for deconditioning aggressive behaviour."The report further recommended (i) medication, (ii) parental counselling and (iii) individual counselling.The affidavits do not disclose whether the recommendations were adhered to by the father.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::the daughter confided in the grandmother that whenever she went to the residence of the mother, her maternal uncle Hadi would "unclothe her, remove her undergarments inside bathroom and further used to pinch on her private parts." She had allegedly reveal this fact to her mother and also her maternal grandmother, who not only did not take the same seriously but instructed the daughter not to disclose it any body.Then the father accompanied by the grandmother approached Bandra Police Station and on 22 nd August, 2014, F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 00 of 2014 was registered against Hadi for having committed office punishable under Section 354 Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act"), on the basis of the information given by the grandmother.After returning at home, I asked Reeba with confidence on 20/08/14, then she told me that, at & when Reeba went to her mother's house, at that time her uncle namely Abdulhadi Vinchu used to pinch and rotated hand on front and back side of personal part by removing her underwear when she went into the bathroom, so she used to suffer by the said fact.Since she was afraid on this incident, so she did not tell anything about the said matter.When she informed the said matter to her mother, then her mother told her not to tell this fact to me and her father, as such informed me by Reeba, hence, today, I have come at Police Station for filing complaint."::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::On 23rd August, 2014, the F.I.R. was transferred to Shanti Nagar Police Station, Bhiwandi at Thane.During the course of investigation, on 25th August, 2014, the daughter was subjected to medical examination at Bhabha Municipal Hospital.The description of the incident narrated by the grandmother at that time, was different from that in the F.I.R.. The narration of the description of the incident to the doctor, is recorded at para 15(A)(vii) of the Medico Legal Examination Report.It describes a much graver incident.The narration reads as follows:"Survivor is their daughter 7½ years Name: Reeba Shafeeq Pagarkar d/o Shafeeq Pagarkar.Her father and mother divorced and custody of child is given to father by court order and visits mother's house at Bhiwandi every weekend (Saturday and Sunday) as per history given to Informant.Her mama (mother's brother) 'Abdul/Hadi Ajmal Vinchu' aged 25 years staying at mother's place sexually assaulted her by inserting fingers in survivor's Vagina and Anus repeatedly since last 1 year.Last date of incidence 17/8/2014 Survivor revealed about this to her grandmother and father on 20/8/2014 that Accused used to remove survivor's undergarments and put finger in survivor's vagina and anus since last 1 year at mother's place.Accused used to threaten not to reveal about it to anybody.So parents (father) brought survivor to the hospital for medical examination and treatment."The difference in the two narrations was not just of the gravity of the actual act but also of the duration of the offending act.The extent of medical examination of the daughter required for the two narrations was obviously different.On the same day, the police recorded the statement of the daughter in question and answer form.Perusal of ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 17/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 that statement shows that several leading questions had been put to the daughter and she was led into saying the allegations against the maternal uncle.She was specifically asked as to what did the maternal uncle do to her.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::20).Hadi, the brother of the mother then filed application for anticipatory bail being Application No. 1782 of 2014 before the Sessions Court.In the same month, the mother has filed Civil Application No.3447 of 2014 for setting aside the consent terms dtd.17th April, 2013 and for handing over custody of the daughter to the mother, which application is pending.In that application, she alleged that the criminal complaints made by the father are false.She has sought to demonstrate therein that on the alleged dates and times of the incident, her brother Hadi was not even at home.As regards the allegations of criminal antecedents of her family by the father and the list produced by him of the offences registered against Hadi and other family members, the mother, on the basis of the information received under Right to Information Act from the concerned police station, has stated in the application that Hadi is not concerned with four of the offences from the list.He has been honourably acquitted in the fifth offence registered and the sixth offence is pending for consideration of the court.21).On 24th September, 2015, on the information of the grandmother, second complaint came to be filed, which was registered as C.R. No.231 of 2015 against the mother as well as her ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 18/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 brother Hadi under Section 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8, 10 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act" for short).The grandmother in her statement alleged that the daughter disclosed to her on 22 nd September, 2015 that on the earlier access to the mother i.e. on 19 th September, 2015, the mother had made her sleep in another room.When the daughter was sleeping, her maternal uncle, Hadi went near her, removed her knicker, pinched her private parts and inserted his finger in her private parts.When the daughter woke up and shouted, the maternal uncle ran away.The daughter had immediately revealed the incident to the mother, who did not pay any heed to it.Instead she asked the daughter to allow the maternal uncle to do whatever he was doing.In the morning, the daughter allegedly disclosed the incident to her elder maternal uncle but he also laughed off the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::22).As per the affidavit of the father, the statement of the daughter was recorded by police on 24 th September, 2015 at Bhabha Municipal Hospital, Bandra (West).That statement was video recorded, and it's C.D. kept in the safe custody of the police.Then the statement of the daughter was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.Armed with the two FIRs, the father had again refused access to the mother, which had to be restored by the orders passed from time to time in various proceedings, including the present proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::Petition 225 of 2016 for quashing of the above mentioned two FIRs registered with Shanti Nagar Police Station, Bhiwandi, which was heard by the Division Bench of this Court.In it's order dtd.15 th September, 2016, the Division Bench recorded the statement of the learned APP on instructions of the concerned police officer that the statement of the daughter was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has specifically denied all the allegations made in the two complaints.The learned APP had placed the statement of the daughter for perusal of the court.After going through the statement, the Division Bench observed that the statement supported the contentions of her mother and her brother.It has categorically held that the two complaints had been filed with an ulterior motive to deprive the access to the mother.After these observations, the Division Bench adjourned the petition in view of the statement made by the learned APP that the investigation was almost complete and appropriate report would be filed before the concerned Magistrate within eight days.The learned APP also stated that in the event the allegations made in the FIR were found to be false, appropriate action would be taken against the complainant under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.The Division Bench accepted both the statements.On the next date i.e. on 25 th February, 2016, the learned APP on instruction of the concerned officer present in the court made a statement that the investigation in the two FIRs was complete and report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was filed.The Division Bench accepted the statement and observed that in that circumstance the grievance of the petitioners did not ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 20/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 survive any more and disposed off the petition accordingly.In view thereof, the Division Bench refused to entertain the petition and dismissed it.Mr. Sasi, the learned Advocate for the father does not dispute receipt of notice from the concerned Magistrate by the grandmother.He however claims that the grandmother is scared to attend to the court because she had received threats to her life.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::The correspondence by the grandmother is sought to be explained by Mr. Sasi saying that it was an act of socially conscious person, who was concerned about the safety to ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 21/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 the general public, since the brother was working with an Airlines.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::25).The facts narrated above indicate that he has been even subsequently violating the orders of the court with impunity, time and again and for that purpose, he has unfortunately used the daughter as a tool.Nevertheless, in this Contempt Petition, the court is required to restrict itself to the lapses referred to in the petition.In his affidavit-in-reply to the Contempt Petition, the father has in terms admitted lapses on his part in giving access to the mother.He has, however, offered explanation by way of justification for the lapse.In the circumstances, the court is required to consider the justification offered for the lapses.If the justification can be accepted, the lapse on the part of the father cannot be said to be willful and deliberate.However, if the justification is not acceptable, the lapse would automatically become willful an deliberate.The justification for 17th August, 2013 is that when the father took the daughter to the residence of the mother, her house was locked.This allegation is denied by the mother.There is nothing brought on record by the father to support his claim.As regards the weekend access for 21 st August, 2013 and 5th August, 2013, the excuse given is for one day i.e. Saturday.There is no reasons stated as to why the daughter could not be taken to the residence of the mother on the evening of the Saturday for the purpose of access on Sunday.The very fact that the daughter was studying in 1st standard is sufficient to hold that the excuse is without any substance.Thus, it is clear that there is willful and deliberate violation of the orders of the court by the father by not handing over custody of the daughter for weekly access in the months of September and October.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::26).The mother has also alleged that she had with the help of police authorities visited the residence of the father, when the access was not provided during this period.The mother has next alleged the incident of her school visit by way of a desperate attempt at access.She has given details of the entire incident, which have not been dealt with specifically by the father in his reply.He has merely denied the incident.Mr. Sasi, on instructions from the father, who is present in the Court, ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 ::: Rane * 25/25 * CP-509-2013 & CP-211-2014 12July2016 states that the father is not willing to handover the custody to the mother.::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::32).In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the following order is passed :-(i) The notice issued for contempt in Contempt Petition No. 509 of 2013 is made absolute.The respondent to that petition, Shafeeq Abdul Rahim is sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of three months.The sentence shall start running on expiry of period of four weeks from today.(ii) Mr. Shafeeq Abdul Rahim shall pay costs of the petition quantified at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner Smt. Tabassum Shafeeq Rahim.The costs shall be paid within four weeks from today.If the costs are not paid within the time granted, the petitioner Smt. Tabassum Shafeeq Rahim will be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.The petitioner, Tabassum shall thereafter deposit the subsistence allowance for Shafiq.(iii) Shafeeq Abdul Rahim shall hand over custody of the daughter Reeba to the mother within one week from today.In the event he fails to hand over custody of the daughter, the petitioner mother may take assistance of Bandra Police Station for the purpose.(iv) Contempt Petition No. 211 of 2014 is dismissed with costs.(SMT.R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:01:59 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,210,919 |
(v) Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 23:53:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 23:53:48 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,121,392 |
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of: Debyendu Chaki @ Dibyendu Jathi @ Barka ... Petitioner Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri ... For the Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Jana ... For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Dasnagar Police Station Case No. 402 of 2015 dated 01.12.2015 under Sections 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,214,434 |
W.P.No.27839 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.29864 of 2017 03.01.2020The writ petition arose out of the impugned order passed by the first respondentin Na.No.M1/33542/2017, dated 13.10.2017 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.71/2013 on the file of Cheyyur Police Stastion for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C.The brief facts of the case reads as follows:Pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent calling for the post of Grade II Police Constable, Jail Warder and Firemen, for the year 2017, the petitioner applied for Grade Police Constable and he was also provisionally selected for the said post.While so, the fourth respondent vide order, dated 13.10.2017, issued in Na.M1/ 33542/2017, rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.71/2013 on the file of Cheyyur Police 2/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.27839 of 2017 Station for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and he did not disclose anything about the said criminal case in Column Nos.15, 16 & 18 of the Verification Roll Form.Aggrieved by the rejection order issued by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was ended in acquittal.He further submitted that the petitioner has not willfully suppressed the said criminal case.He therefore seeks to quash the impugned order, dated 13.10.2017 and consequential direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is very well aware of the aforesaid criminal case registered against him Cr.No.71/2013 on the file of Cheyyur Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC, but he did not whisper anything about the aforesaid criminal case in Column Nos.15, 16 & 18 of the Verification Roll Form.Hence, the petitioner's appointment was rightly rejected by the respondent Department.http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.27839 of 20175. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.The petitioner is seeking for appointment in the respondent Department on the following two grounds:(i) The petitioner has not willfully suppressed the material fact viz., the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.71/2013 on the file of Cheyyur Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) I.P.C. in the Verification Roll Form as stated in the impugned order.However, the petitioner did not disclose his involvement in the said criminal case in Column Nos.15, 16 & 18 of the Verification Roll Form.Insofar as the second ground is concerned, it is pertinent to extract the operative portion of the judgement dated 02.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhurandhagam in C.C.No.76 of 2014 hereinbelow:''10/ ,t;tHf;fpy; tprhhpf;fg;gl;l rhl;rpfs; xUtUk; 1 Kjy; 6 vjphpfs; jhd; 9.3.13k; njjp rk;gtj;jpy; <Lgl;L thjpia tHpklf;fp Ma[jk; Ve;jp. fyfk; tpistpj;jhh;fs;j';fis jhf;fpajhf Twpa[s;snghjpYk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mJ Fwpj;J ve;j rhl;rpaKk; mspf;ftpy;iy/ nkYk;.Ma[j';fis vjphpfs; gad;gLj;jp ,Ue;jhy; muR jug;gpy; mt;tha[j';fs; ifg;gw;wpapUf;f ntz;Lk; mt;thW Ma[jk;http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.27839 of 2017 vJt[k; ifg;gw;wg;gltpy;iy/ ,t;thwhd NH;epiyapy; g[ydha;t[ mjpfhhpahd m/rh/2 rhl;rpaj;ij kl;Lk; itj;J vjphpfs; midtUk; Fw;w braypy; <Lgl;lhh;fs; vd;W Kot[ bra;a KoahJ. m/rh/1 muR jug;gpw;F gpwH;e;J rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shh;/ ,e;epiyapy; ,e;j tHf;fpd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; rhl;rpaj;ij kl;Lk; mog;gilahf itj;J vjphpfs; Fw;wbraypy; <Lgl;lhh;fs; vd;W fUj ,ayhJ/ vdnt re;njfj;jpd; gyid vjphpfSf;F mspj;J 1tJ vjphp ,jr gphpt[fspd; 147, 148, 448, 324, 506(ii)d; goa[k; v2 Kjy; v6tJ tiua[s;s vjphpfs; ,jr gphpt[fspd; 147, 148, 448, 323d; fPH; Fw;wthspfs; my;y vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ/"On perusing the said judgement, it is seen that the trial Court has acquitted the petitioner and other accused who were involved in the said criminal case, on benefit of doubt.In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed.State of M.P., WP No. 9412 of 2013, order dated 31-7-2014 (MP)] as well as by the Division Bench [State of M.P.v.No costs.'' 10/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.27839 of 2017Petitioner sought for appointment in the Police department.The petitioner must possess the required qualification, honesty integrity and also have a clean record having good antecedents and character.Admittedly, the petitioner did not disclose his involvement in a criminal case registered against him.Even though the petitioner was acquitted from the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 448 & 323 I.P.C., vide judgment dated 02.08.2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhurandhagam in C.C.No.76 of 2014 on benefit of doubt, not a honorary acquittal.Considering the serious nature of the criminal case registered against the petitioner and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Surpeme Court settled the proposition of law that the employer is have the right to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate for appointment, there is no scope for interference with the order, dated 13.10.2017 passed by the first respondent.Therefore, this Court cannot direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Constable, Grade II.Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.No costs.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.01.2020 11/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.27839 of 2017 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., mrr Speaking/Non Speaking order Index : Yes/No mrr To3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District,Villupuram.4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.5.The Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
612,149 |
One Shri Digvijay Singh, a minor, is the Malguzar and Muafidar of several villages including Amba, Selda and Balabad which have extensive forest areas appertaining thereto.His mother Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai is his guardian and manages his estate on his behalf "with the assistance of one Radhakrishna, who gets a salary of Rs. 600 per annum.The estate owns a bungalow known as Bedia Bungalow at Khandwa, half of which is occupied by Dr. S. M. A. Rahman, Civil Surgeon, and the other half by Shri Durga Narain Singh (husband of the Sister of the minor's deceased father).Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai used to stay with Durga Narain Singh at Bedia Bungalow whenever she used to go to Khandwa.On 23-7-1946 four applications were made on behalf of the minor under Section 202, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act -- three of them being for permission to cut the forest growth in those three villages and the fourth one for permission to cultivate the forest area of village Amba.These applications were sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khandwa, for report.Between August 6 and August 13, 1947 the Divisional Forest officer in his turn forwarded the said applications for report to the appellant who was then the Range Officer.The prosecution case is that on 26-10-1947 the appellant came to Bedia for inspecting the forests at Amba which he did in the company of one Pratab Singh the brother of Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai.On 27-10-1947 he was invited to the house of the minor at Bedia and was given tea there.While taking tea the appellant told Radhakrishna that he would see the forest of Selda after a day.He also said that the area of the forest was large and that they would have to pay Rs. 500 to him.Radhakrishna informed Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai about the talk and the later asked him to go to Khandwa, collect rent and pay something to the appellant.As Radhakrishna was leaving, the appellant asked him to send Durga Narain Singh as he wanted to talk to him.Later in the evening Radhakrishna informed Durga Narain Singh that the appellant had wanted to see him and also related to Durga Narain Singh about the payment of Rs. 200 and the talk relating to that matter.Radhakrishna returned to Bedia on 13-11-1947 and informed Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai about what had transpired between him and the appellant at Khandwa.In the meantime Durga Narain Singh saw Shri Kekre, Sub-Divisional Officer of Khandwa, and revealed to him the whole position.Shri Kekre outlined a programme for entrapping the appellant.Durga Narain Singh accordingly wrote to Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai and she eventually came to Khandwa on or about 25-11-1947 and stayed at the Bedia Bungalow with Durga Narain Singh.Radhakrishna brought Rs. 300 in three hundred-rupee notes which were handed over to Durga Narain Singh.With these notes Durga Narain Singh saw Shri Kekre who took him to Shri Deo, the Additional District Magistrate, and the three of them went to Shri S. M. Seth, the Deputy Commissioner, and informed him that Rs. 200 had been paid to the appellant and that he had demanded Rs. 300 more.The Deputy Commissioner thereupon noted the numbers of the said currency notes in the memorandum Ex. P/4 and returned the notes to Durga Narain Singh and it was arranged that Durga Narain Singh would give the notes to Radhakrishna who would hand over the same to the appellant at his house on that very night.In the evening Shri Kekre and Shri Deo went to the police station and collected Chakravarti, the Circle Inspector, and S. D. Pande, theSub-Inspector, and on their way picked up Shri L. R. Joshi, a first Class Magistrate.The party then proceeded towards the Rest House.Durga Narain Singh was asked to send Radhakrishna with the notes to the appellant.The party waited at the Rest House for the return of Radhakrishna and when he failed to appear the party went out from the Rest House and met Radhakrishna on the way.Radhakrishna reported that there was no movement in the house of the appellant and that the inmates appeared to be asleep.The trap thus proved unsuccessful on that occasion.Thereupon the party consisting of Shri Kekre, Deo, Joshi, Durga Narain Singh and Radhakrishna went to the bungalow of Shri Kekre and there it was decided that the appellant should be invited to tea on behalf of Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai at Bedia Bungalow in the morning of the next day and there the amount of Rs. 300 in those threehundred-rupee notes would be given to him.It was arranged that after acceptance of the money by the appellant Radhakrishna would give the signal from the front side of the bungalow by taking off his cap and scratching his head.Next morning at about 6 or 6-30 a.m. Radhakrishna called at the house of the appellant and on behalf of Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai invited him to tea at the Bedia Bungalow and told him that whatever was to be given to him would be given there.The appellant having accepted the invitation, Radhakrishna returned and informed Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai that the appellant would come for tea at about 8 or 8-30 a.m. Thereafter Durga Narain Singh sent word to Shri Deo that the appellant was arriving for "tea at 8-30 or so.Shri Deo with L. R. Joshi and S. D. Pande went to the bungalow of one Shri Trivedi in the neighbourhood of Bedia Bungalow and took up their position in that bungalow and saw the appellant coming to and entering the Bedia Bungalow.After a while the appellant emerged with Radhakrishna from the Bedia Bungalow when Radhakrishna gave the signal by taking off his cap and scratching his head.The appellant was followed by Shri Joshi, Deo and Pande.Shri Joshi called out to him to stop and on coming up to him told him that he was going to be searched because he had accepted an illegal gratification.Shri Deo, who noticed that the appellant's shirt pocket contained an envelope, removed it and after opening it found that it contained the three notes in question.The appellant begged to be saved and implored for kindness as he was a family man with children.The envelope and the notes were duly seized and their numbers recorded on the back of the envelope by Shri Deo before the party went to the police station in a lorry.The appellant was thereafter formally arrested and subsequently let out on bail.He was quite new to this Range and had never toured in thesub-range.JUDGMENT S.R. Das, J.On the above allegations the appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code, after the requisite sanction had been obtained.He, however, denied that he went to the house of the minor at Bedim on 27-10-1947 or demanded Rs. 500 or that in the beginning of November 1947 he had received Rs. 200 from Radhakrishna or had pointed out that the amount was inadequate or insisted on the balance of Rs. 300 being paid to him.He admitted that on the morning of 27-11-1947 he had gone to the Bedim Bungalow for tea but he averred that in the early morning he had been informed by Radhakrishna that it was Durga Narain Singh who had invited him to tea.He denied that he had accepted any illegal gratification in the shape of three currency notes of Rs. 100 each from Radhakrishna at Bedim Bungalow.He said that Durga Narain Singh opened the talk in the course of tea and asked him whether he had seen the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests in accordance with which he was to make his report.He told Durga Narain Singh that the said instructions had not been received by him from the office of the Divisional Forest Officer and that as soon as they would be received he would arrange his tour programme for Bedia Range.Durga Narain Singh asked him to personally go to the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer to see the instructions and oblige them.Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai also requested him to expedite his report.In good faith, the appellant agreed to do so.As soon as he agreed to go to the Divisional Forest Officer's office Durga Narain Singh and Radhakrishna told him that if the Estate Pleader Shri R. K. Mandloi were also called from the Bar Room which was close by to see those instructions then they could promptly carry out those instructions so far as they required anything to be done by them.Radhakrishna thereupon brought from inside a letter and asked the appellant to hand it over to the pleader whom the appellant knew.The appellant, without any Suspicion, took the letter from him.The trial Court, believing the prosecution story, held that the appellant knowingly accepted the three currency notes as illegal gratification and convicted him on 5-9-1949, of the offence with which he stood charged and sentenced him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.The learned trial Magistrate, after broadly reciting the facts, commented on the delay on the part of the appellant in submitting his report on the four applications and considered that the delay was clearly indicative of his mala fides and was quite deliberate to screw out money from Radhakrishna.Taking into consideration the delay referred to above and the recovery of the three currency notes the Magistrate thought it was quite clear that the appellant must have asked for and received Rs. 300 as bribe from Radhakrishna.Although from the way Radhakrishna had deposed in his Court, and the way in which he had explained the various entries in the account books the Magistrate concluded that Radhakrishna could not be said to be an honest and straightforward man, he nevertheless, observed that that fact itself could not be a sufficient ground for disbelieving him in what he stated about the demand of Rs. 300 made by the appellant, especially when his statement in that respect was, according to the Magistrate, corroborated in material particulars by the circumstances which preceded and followed that demand.He held that the appellant was invited to tea on behalf of Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai and that Rs. 300 were really paid to him as bribe for inducing him to submit a favourable report.His view was that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai.The appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nimar-Khandwa, against the order of the trial Magistrate.The learned Additional Sessions Judge had to determine two questions, namely, (1) whether there was a demand for Rs. 500 by the appellant on 27-10-1947 and a payment of Rs. 200 on 5-11-1947, and (2) whether on 27-11-1947, there was a payment of Rs. 300 and a conscious acceptance of it by the appellant as bribe.The learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the evidence closely and in detail and pointed out the glaring discrepancies between the evidence of different prosecution witnesses on vital points and to diverse inconsistent and even contradictory statements made by the same witness at different stages of his or her evidence and the obvious improbabilities of some of those statements.On reading the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that Radhakrishna was a wily man who was out to exploit the predicament to which Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai was put by reason of the impending acquisition of the proprietary rights in the villages.In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge although the individual misappropriations on the part of Radhakrishna were trivial, they, nevertheless, Showed the man and it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that he was himself appropriating the money on the pretext of giving it to the appellant.In the circumstances the Additional Sessions Judge could not rely upon the evidence of Radhakrishna on either of the two points.He pointed out that Brijraj Singh and Pratab Singh who were admittedly present at Bedia on 27-10-1947 when the demand of Rs. 500 is alleged to have been made had not been examined to corroborate the evidence of Radhakrishna and concluded that on the uncorroborated testimony of Radhakrishna the first question could not be held to have been duly proved by the prosecution.He rejected as incredible the story of the appellant having made an admission of the receipt of Rs. 200 as bribe to Durga Narain Singh whom he met for the first time about the middle of November 1947 and who had introduced himself by Ex. D/6 as a probationer under training and had already seen the Divisional Forest Officer, who was the senior Officer of the appellant.He also pointed out that if that story were true Durga Narain Singh would certainly have told the Magistrate about it and would also have complained to the Divisional Forest Officer himself which he admittedly did not do.The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, in view of these obvious improbabilities, felt bound to reject the evidence of Durga Narain Singh also.Further, the evidence relating to the petition Ex. P/6 shows that the evidence of neither Radhakrishna nor Durga Narain Singh could be relied upon.The petition, on the face of it, was a clumsy attempt to manufacture evidence and persons who could stoop so low as to manufacture an antedated document cannot possibly be relied upon as witnesses of truth.Thus one important and integral part of the prosecution case was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge for want of sufficient and convincing proof.As regards the payment of Rs. 300 on 27-11-1947 as bribe the only evidence was that of Radhakrishna and Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai.Here again the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to the absence of any cogent explanation in the evidence as to why it was decided to pass on the three notes in an envelope.He pointed out the clear discrepancies as to the identity of the person who was responsible for suggesting this clandestine method and as to what talk actually took place at the time the envelope was handed over to the appellant.He did not find Durga Narain Singh's explanation for his keeping away from the scene when the appellant came to tea on that date as at all convincing in view of the alleged perfect understanding between the appellant, Radhakrishna and Durga Narain Singh.He also commented on the fact that none of the Magistrates considered it necessary or right, in order to prevent any mistake, to remain concealed in an anteroom and overhear the exact talk that took place between the appellant and Radhakrishna.In a careful and well considered judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for reasons which appeal to us to be quite cogent and convincing, held that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate and acquitted the appellant.The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the above order of acquittal.The High Court by its judgment dated 20-9-1950 set aside the acquittal, and convicted the appellant as already mentioned.Although the learned Judges of the High Court fully endorsed the estimate formed by the trial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge as to the character of Radhakrishna and found it "clear enough that he was neither honest nor straightforward", they did not discuss the evidence of the different witnesses at all or advert to any of the criticisms offered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment on the strength of which he had disbelieved the prosecution story.He says that in September 1947 he requested the Divisional Forest Officer to furnish him with a copy of the map of Khandwa Tahsil.On 26-10-1947 he inspected Lachora forest and Amba Forest.He requested Pratab Singh who had accompanied him on the inspection of Amba forest to send a section of teak tree marked in his presence.In the meantime he had to go back to the headquarter in order to submit accounts to the Divisional Forest Officer.It appears that the report was sent back with the remark that the report should be drawn up in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests.There is no evidence at all that he was ever approached by Radhakrishna or Durga Narain Singh at any time before 26-10-1947 to expedite his enquiry or that he put it off.The appellant being new to this Range and as he had to familiarise himself with it and to attend to the Government forest coupes included in this Range we do not consider that there was in fact any unreasonable delay or that he had adopted any delaying tactics deliberately to screw out money from the minor's estate.It further appears from his examination under Section 342, Criminal P. C. that this case of delay was never put to him nor was he given any opportunity to explain the same.In the circumstances the alleged delay cannot be regarded as an incriminating circumstance.In the second place the High Court made strong comments on the conduct of the appellant, a public officer, in acting in the manner he did vis-a-vis the legal representatives of the party concerning whose forests he had been directed to hold an enquiry.It is to be remembered that Durga Narain Singh was also a Public Officer stationed in the same town of Khandwa where the appellant also resided and further that Durga Narain Singh had approached the superior officer of the appellant.In the premises Durga Narain Singh could naturally be, considered by the appellant to be a person of some influence, status and responsibility.Durga Narain Singh had admittedly called at the place of the appellant twice and, if the appellant is to be believed, had tea with him at his bungalow.In these circumstances, there was nothing wrong if the appellant had, in return, called at Durga Narain Singh's place and accepted his invitation to tea.If, therefore, on the morning of 27-11-1947, the appellant agreed to oblige Durga Narain Singh, a brother officer, and Shrimati Rajendra Kumaribai, the mother of the minor jaguar and mafia, by going to the office of the Divisional Forest Officer to have a look at the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forest in order to expedite matters instead of waiting for those instructions officially coming to him and if he also agreed to take a letter to the pleader whom he knew so that the pleader also could go and inspect those instructions in order that if anything was required to be done by the estate it could be done immediately such conduct need not necessarily be looked upon with suspicion.In fact, Shri L. R. Joshi said that "if one of my friends invited me for tea I would readily accept his invitation.If during tea this friend were to hand me over a letter to be given to Shri R. S. Joshi, Pleader of Harsud, I will take it.I would not open the letter to know its contents." It is, therefore, not necessarily unbecoming of an officer to agree to carry a letter from a brother officer, particularly if requested after being entertained to tea.The third point made by the High Court was that the appellant did not, in his examination by the trial court, say that the letter was to be delivered to Mandloi or that there was any suggestion that he should see the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests or that there was any allusion to such instructions and that reference to these matters first appeared in the written statement which was filed five months later.The High Court was clearly in error on this point.Finally, the High Court relied on the statements alleged to have been made by the appellant when he was halted after leaving the Bedia Bungalow.The whole evidence of course was not quoted.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,216,842 |
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the incident took place on the intervening night of 2nd June, 1998 and 3rd June, 1998, and Crl.A.399/2000 Page 1 of 5 the FIR was registered on 3rd June, 1998 at 3.40 PM, i.e. after lapse of sufficient time, even then the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR by the mother of the prosecutrix.Admittedly, the appellant was known to the prosecutrix, despite which he was not named in the FIR.The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 2 nd June, 1998 and 3rd June, 1998, the prosecutrix PW.2, was sleeping on the roof Crl.A.399/2000 Page 2 of 5 along with her mother, grandmother and brother.Accused lifted her and took her to a newly constructed house where he laid her on ground and removed her underwear and committed rape on her.The accused had threatened her to kill if she disclosed it to anyone and ran away from there.She came back to the house and narrated the incident to her mother.She was medically examined and her statement (Ex.PW. 2/A) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During cross examination she deposed that she did not remember the date, month or year of the incident.She further deposed that the accused was known to her prior to the incident but she had not told the name of the accused to her mother.She identified the accused at police station but had not come to court to identify the accused as she already knew him.She also deposed that her father was sleeping outside the house near the door, which is the only entrance to the house and was not locked from inside on the day of incident.She deposed that she had not identified the accused when he lifted her from the cot in the night.She also did not identify the Accused when he committed rape on her.She further deposed that she had not told the name of the accused to the police.A.399/2000 Page 2 of 5The version of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief is corroborated by her MLC Ex.PW.2/A and the CFSL report Ex. PW.7/A. The Crl.A.399/2000 Page 3 of 5 prosecutrix is a child of tender age and was examined without oath.Having deposed in examination-in-chief and withstanding the cross-examination initially, her testimony cannot be discredited merely because she could not withstand the grilling cross-examination till the end blurred why answering two questions put to her in the end.A.399/2000 Page 3 of 5Version of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by her mother, who was informed immediately by her and who found her bleeding from private parts, whereafter the mother of the prosecutrix informed her husband, who called the police.PW.3 also clarified that her daughter did not disclose the name of the appellant initially, as she stated that she had been threatened by him not to disclose his name.The MLC Ex.The prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case in cross- examination.The appellant has been falsely implicated, thus he be acquitted of the charges framed.A.399/2000 Page 1 of 53. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR recorded on 3 rd June, 1998 as prosecutrix was threatened by the appellant not to take his name, however, the identity was revealed in the supplementary statement of the mother, which was recorded on 4th June, 1998 itself.Further the prosecutrix named the appellant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both the prosecutrix and her mother have supported the prosecution case which is corroborated by the MLC of the prosecutrix and the CFSL report.PW.7/A of the prosecutrix, who was aged eight years at the time of the incident, notes that there were marks of scratches on the back of the prosecutrix, which supports her version that she was taken by the accused to a newly constructed house opposite her house, where she was laid on the ground and raped.Further as per the CFSL report Ex. PW.12/C semen was detected in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.Considering the cogent and convincing testimony of the prosecutrix, duly corroborated by her mother, the MLC Ex. PW.7/A and CFSL report Ex. Crl.A.399/2000 Page 4 of 5 PW.12/C merely because, she did not disclose the name of the appellant immediately after the incident, the prosecution case would not fail.A.399/2000 Page 4 of 5Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.The appellant will surrender to custody for undergoing the remaining sentence.The bail bond and surety bond of the appellant are cancelled.Trial court record be sent back.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 3, 2016 'n' Crl.A.399/2000 Page 5 of 5A.399/2000 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,623,525 |
DATE : 22 FEBRUARY 2019P.C.:This Criminal Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.The applicant /accused is convicted for the offence punishable undersections 354 (A) (1), 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") byorder dated 7th May, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Wai.By the said order, the applicant/accused is sentenced to suffer S.I for 6months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 3 monthsunder section 354 (A) (1) of the IPC; under section 452 of the IPC, theapplicant/accused is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine ofTrupti 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:40:15 ::: 901-apl-994-20178.docRs.5000, in default to suffer S.I. for 2 months; under section 506 of the IPC, theapplicant/accused is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 1 month.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:40:15 :::The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that against the saidorder, the applicant/accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2015,which is pending before the Sessions Court, Satara.However, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said compromise pursisand the prayer of compounding the offences on the ground that the offencesunder sections 354 (A) (1) and 452 of the IPC are non-compoundable.Theview taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with.However, thesaid compromise pursis can be considered by the learned Sessions Judge at thetime of hearing the Appeal.The learned Sessions Judge to expedite the Appeal.With this, Criminal Application is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 01:40:15 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,624,310 |
as (Rejected) C.R.M. 10670 of 2017 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.10.2017 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No.231 of 2017 dated 23.06.2017 under Sections 498B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Bulu Das & Ors. ...Petitioners.Mr. Bhaskar Hutait....for the Petitioners.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners and the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,126,288 |
According to the CBI, the High Court has seriously erred inquashing the FIR/charge-sheet at the very threshold without even givinganopportunity to the CBI to lead evidence in the case.Investigation has further disclosed that till 22.8.1991 Shri AnandMohanSharan did not have any significant/noticeable assets.It has also been disclosed that thesaid flat was allotted to accused Anand Mohan Sharan on 9.10.1995 andit isstill in his possession.It is further disclosed that in a short spelloftime accused Anand Mohan Sharan accumulated substantial movable assetsincluding Bank balances and other investments.Investigation has further disclosed that during search conducted inRC.AC.3/2003 A002 at the residence of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan, cash ofRs.36,14,970/- was recovered from two different places in the house,out ofwhich Rs.33 lacs in the form of 1000 currency notes of Rs.1000/- each,4600currency notes of Rs.500/- each and balance 600 currency notes ofRs.100/-each were found inside a VIP sky bag, kept inside box type double bed ofmaster bedroom at 1st floor.The remaining cash aggregating toRs.3,14,970/- was found/recovered from different steel almirahs, in thesaid house.During investigation Shri Anand Mohan Sharan claimed that theamount ofRs.36 lakhs recovered from his residence belonged to his father.On hispart, Shri K.M. Sharan, father of accused took the plea that the amountrecovered from the residence of his son was received as sale proceeds oftwo properties - (a) Plot No. 908, MIE, Bahadurgarh and (b) House No.C-2/388, Janak Puri, New Delhi.He contended that cash of Rs.4 lakhs andRs.10 lakhs respectively were received by him on 4.2.2003 and 6.3.2003fromShri Vijay Gulati at Bahadurgarh Plot and an amount of Rs.22 lakhs wasreceived on 20.3.2003 from Shri Harmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh asadvance for sale of Janakpuri House against a total consideration ofRs.50lakhs.He has also claimed that since he had to proceed to Jaisalmer on8.3.2003, he kept the amount of Rs.14 lakhs received for Bahadurgarhplotwith his son Shri Anand Mohan Sharan.Under these circumstances he had to stay at his son's house for acouple ofdays and on 20.3.2003, the deal for sale of Janakpuri house alsomaterialized and consequent thereto, he claimed to have kept the saidamount of Rs.22 lakhs also at his son's residence.He further claimedthatit was in view of his medical condition that he considered it prudent tokeep cash received towards the above mentioned sale transactions at hisson's house.During the investigation, the plea taken by Shri K.M. Sharan wasfoundto be dubious and incorrect, as a number of inconsistencies were foundinthe explanation which rebut the explanation of Shri K. M. Sharan andaccused Shri Anand Mohan Sharan in tandem, regarding recovery of Rs.36lakhs.Such inconsistencies are listed as under:-It is pertinent to mention thatShriK. M. Sharan, father of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan, was not present at thehouse of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan at the time of the search when Rs.36lacswere recovered from him.Further, house search at C-2/388, Janakpuri,NewDelhi of Shri K. M. Sharan was also conducted on 28.3.2003, i.e. one dayafter the search at the house of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan.During thesearch, cash of Rs.75,000/- was also seized from Shri K.M. Sharan'shouse.The plea of Shri K. M. Sharan that Rs.36 lacs was kept by him at hisson'shouse for safe keeping becomes untenable due to recovery of substantialamount of cash from his own house too, subsequently.(ii) That Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan was required to give his consent forlie detector test in the context of his claim regarding Rs.36 lakhsseizedfrom the residence of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan.However, Shri KrishanMohan Sharan expressed his unwillingness in writing citing medical reasons.Incidently, ShriK.M. Sharan was treated by Dr. S.S. Bansal as a `complimentary' patientduring that time and no payment was charged.No. 94304,which is in handwriting different from the preceding and succeedingentries.Moreover, entry at Sl.Moreover, as per practice, Stamp Papers are purchased bytheparty who is purchasing any property whereas the relevant stamp papershavebeen shown purchased in the name of Shri K.M. Sharan.Thus thecredibilityof the agreement to sell is doubtful.During investigation, ShriDevenderKumar, Stamp Vendor who sold Stamp Papers for property no. C-2/388,Janakpuri, New Delhi on 20.3.2003, stated that some employee of anadvocatehad come to him and requested for back dated stamp paper in the name ofShri K.M. Sharan, as the stamp paper purchased earlier was purportedlylost.Accordingly, he saw his register and found that entry at Sl.No.94304 was lying blank.So he made an entry regarding sale of stamppaper toShri K.M. Sharan in that blank space available in the date 20.3.2003 inhisregister, whereas it was sold much later.(vi) That, Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan has taken a plea that amount ofRs.36lakhs received by him for sale of two properties could not be depositedinthe Bank as he was searching for a property for his daughter and lateronhe fractured his leg, due to which he could not visit the Bank.Butduringinvestigation many Bank accounts of Shri K. M. Sharan and his companywerescrutinized, which show that during the relevant period, there were manydebits as well as credit entries made in those accounts and that he hadoperated his Bank accounts through his employees.(vii) That, Shri K.M. Sharan claimed that he had kept Rs.4 lakhs in hishouse which was received by him on 4.2.2003 towards advance for sale ofplot at Bahadurgarh till 8.3.2003 instead of depositing the same atBank ofBaroda located near his house, where he had an account.M. Sharan are devoid of any logic, and defy normal humanprudence/practice.(viii) That, during investigation, Shri Vijay Gulati and Shri AjayGulatiwho allegedly purchased the Bahadurgarh plot have stated before independentwitnesses, that the currency notes of Rs.14 lacs paid by them to ShriK.M.Sharan for the deal of Bahadurgarh plot were in the denomination ofRs.100and Rs.50/-.However, in the currency notes of 36 lacs, which was seizedfrom the residence of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan, as aforementioned, thecurrency notes found in the denomination of Rs.100/- add up to onlyRs.60,000/-.It is also disclosed that there are no currency notes inthedenominations of Rs.50/- as rest of currency notes are in thedenominationsof Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-.Leave granted.The Central Bureau of Investigation (for short `CBI) has questionedthelegality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 inCrl.MP No.1802/2006 delivered by the High Court of Delhi by which it quashedthe FIR and the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent undersections120B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal arerecapitulated as under:-A case (FIR RC No.AC3/2003, 0002) was registered against the then Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and other senior officialsofthe DDA for entering into conspiracy with Dharmbir Khattar, Ajay Khanna,Ravinder Taneja, G.R. Gogia and Mukesh Saini to give undue favour to M/sDLF Universal Limited, New Delhi in the matter of allowing 300 FloorAreaRatio (FRA) in respect of one of the projects of DLF Universal bychargingrates much below the prevailing market rates and obtained or agreed toobtain illegal gratification from M/s DLF as quid pro quo.The totalbribeamount was 1.10 crores.During the course of investigation andsubsequentsearch conducted at the residence of the respondent's son A.M. Sharanwhowas at that time Commissioner (Land Disposal, DDA), certainpapers/documents relating to assets acquired/expenses incurred by himandhis family members besides the cash amount of Rs.36 lacs were recoveredandseized by the Central Bureau of Investigation.Consequently, a fresh FIRNo.RC.AC.3/2003 A0003 was registered against A.M. Sharan, the son of therespondent.RC.AC.3/2003 A0003, A.M. Sharan claimed that the cash of about Rs.36lacs recovered from his residence belonged to his father, the respondentherein.On enquiry from the father, the respondent K.M. Sharan took the plea inwriting that the amount recovered from the residence of his sonbelonged tohim which he had received as sale proceeds of two properties, i.e., PlotNo.908 and House No. C-2/388, Janak Puri, New Delhi.The respondentsubmitted that the cash of Rs.4 lacs and 10 lacs received by him on04.02.2003 and 06.03.2003 respectively from Vijay Gulati for the saleproceeds of Bahadurgarh plot and the cash amount of Rs.22 lacs wasreceivedon 20.03.2003 as an advance from Harmanjeet Singh and Anoop Singh forsaleof Janak Puri house in total consideration of Rs.50 lacs.The CBI found that there were several inconsistencies andirregularitiesin the stand taken by the respondent (written plea) and the stand takenbyhis son, A.M. Sharan with regard to recovery of Rs.36 lacs from theresidence of A.M. Sharan.The CBI conducted investigation and after itscompletion, charge-sheet was filed on 06.09.2005 in the Court of SpecialJudge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for offences under sections 13(2)read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.M.Sharan and also under section 120B read with section 193 IPC againstA.M.Sharan and the respondent.According to the CBI, the allegations levelled against the respondentwerefully supported by documents and also sufficient to prove the caseduringthe trial.The documents which were supplied to the appellant CBI insupport of the stand taken by the respondent were also found to befalse.Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned Additional Solicitor General,appearing for the appellant, in order to demonstrate that in this casetheingredients of section 120B read with section 193 IPC are fully madeout,has drawn our attention to the charge-sheet in extenso.We deem it appropriate to reproduce certain portions of the charge-sheet toevaluatewhether the ingredients of offence under section 120B read with section193IPC are made out or not.(iii) That the property no. C-2/388, Janakpuri, New Delhi for the saleofwhich an amount of Rs.22 lacs was claimed to have been received, wasmortgaged to Bank of Baroda, Navada Branch, New Delhi, in lieu of Bankguarantee for Rs.1 crore issued by the Bank on behalf of M/s SharanDistributors.The said Bank guarantee was issued on 27.8.2002 in lieuof asecurity deposit of Rs.1 crore on behalf of M/s. Sharan Distributorsagainst equitable mortgage of property situated at C-2/388, Janakpuri,NewDelhi.It is also disclosed that the borrower is morally underobligationnot to deal with the property in any manner, whatsoever, without thewritten consent/approval of the Bank.In view of this, Shri KrishanMohanSharan could not have entered into an agreement to sell with ShriHarmanjeet Singh and Shri Anoop Singh, without the consent of the Bank.It completely defies logic andcommonsense that this property valued at Rs.1 crore 29 lacs was beingsoldfor a total consideration of Rs.50 lacs to Shri Harmanjeet Singh andShriAnoop Singh.(iv) That, Shri Anoop Singh who purportedly financed Rs.12 lakhs out ofRs.22 lakhs for purchase of Janakpuri property, while disclosing thesourceof this amount he claimed that he and his family members received moneyamounting to Rs.10,60,000/- in 28 separate installments from August2002 toMarch 2003 from his relatives settled in USA through Western Union MoneyTransfer.It defies commonsense and reasonable prudence that this moneynever entered banking channels from August 2002 to March 2003 and waskeptin the house by Shri Anoop Singh, and was finally allegedly paid incash toShri K.M. Sharan.(v) That, the stamp paper purchased for the purported sale/purchase ofHouse No.C-2/388, Janakpuri, New Delhi is shown to have been purchasedon20.03.2003 in the record of Shri Devender Kumar, Stamp Vendor and entrytothis effect has been made in the last line of the page at Sl.Further Sl.71, 121, 122, 124 to 127,130,131, 142, 143, 145 to 147, 153, 154, 162, 163, 174 to 180, 188, 189,193,194, 197, 199, 200, 201, 203 to 207, 221, 222, 225 to 229, 233, 239,245 to249 have been left blank to facilitate such false entries, as done intheinstant case.He has claimedthatthis amount was kept at Anand Mohan Sharan's residence on 8.3.2003 i.e.more than one month later.He also claimed that part payment ofRs.10,00,000/- received on 6.3.2003 in the same deal was also kept byhimat Anand Mohan Sharan's residence on 8.3.2003 instead of depositing thesame in the aforesaid Bank located near his house.These claims of ShriK.(ix) That Shri Vijay Gulati of M/s. Sunrex Fabrics made false andmanipulated entries in the books of accounts of M/s. Gulati & Co. and inthe Account Book of M/s. Sunrex and Co. to show availability of Rs.14lakhsin cash purportedly paid to Shri K. M. Sharan.These manipulated entriesaccording to Shri Vijay Gulati were made at the behest of Shri K. M.Sharanafter the aforementioned recovery of Rs.36 lacs, to legitimateexistence ofRs.14 lacs.In order to show receipt/generation of Rs.14 lakhs inAccountBooks of M/s. Gulati and Co., Shri Vijay Gulati had also prepared falsecash memos showing receipt/generation of sales worth Rs.14 lacs by M/s.Further whereas the sale proceeds of M/s Gulati & Co.betweenAugust 2000 to January, 2003 (29 months) were worth Rs.1,52,534/-purchasedsales shown to have been made between 18th January, 2003 and 3rd March,2003 (44 days) were for Rs.13,83,106/-.This clearly indicates aninconsistent pattern of purported business/sales of M/s. Gulati & Co.through false cash memos, which were prepared to show false sales.Thus, the investigation has disclosed that Shri K. M. Sharan, inorderto save his son actively connived with him to fabricate false evidencetolegitimize the ill-gotten amount of Rs.36 lakhs recovered asaforementionedfrom Shri Anand Mohan Sharan's residence.During the course of investigation, he has, in connivance withhisfather come up with certain dubious explanations and in support thereofcreated certain fraudulently prepared documents showing cash of Rs.36lacsrecovered from him as belonged to Shri K. M. Sharan.Investigation byCBIinto this aspect has proved the aforementioned claims/explanations to befalse.It is also disclosed that Shri Anand Mohan Sharan had enteredinto a criminal conspiracy with his father Shri K.M. Sharan, in furtherance towhich false evidence was created and submitted during the course ofinvestigation in the instant case.The investigation has therefore established that the said Shri AnandMohan Sharan during the period 22.08.1991 to 27.03.2003 was inpossessionof assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income byRs.45,70,560.38 (Rupees Forth five lacs, seventy thousand, five hundredsixty and thirty eight paisa) which he could not satisfactorily accountfor.Further, Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan entered into criminal conspiracywith Shri Anand Mohan Sharan by intentionally fabricating falseevidence tolegitimize the source of the aforementioned cash of Rs.36,00,000/-seizedduring the house search of Shri Anand Mohan Sharan.The aforesaid actsconstitute commission of offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) ofPCAct, 1988 by Shri Anand Mohan Sharan and U/s 120B r/w 193 I.P.C. by ShriAnand Mohan Sharan and Shri Krishan Mohan Sharan and substantive offencethereof."In the light of abovementioned material, we are called upon tocritically evaluate and examine the judgment of the High Court.Thisexercise has been undertaken in order to arrive at objective assessmentwhether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet in this case.In the impugned judgment, the High Court after giving the basicfacts ofthe case and recording of the submissions of the parties has given itsfindings."Therefore, according to the C.B.I., the plea of the petitioner that hehadkept the sale proceeds of the two properties at his son's residence wasnota valid plea as nothing prevented the petitioner to keep this amount aswell as at his son's house if he was so concerned about the safety ofhiscash.(emphasis supplied)The High Court further observed as under:Rather charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. confirms the fact thatduring investigation, Shri Vijay Gulati one of the prospective buyers ofthe property of the petitioner had admitted that he had paid a partconsideration towards the property to the petitioner but the C.B.I.stillmade the petitioner an accused on the ground that the denomination of currency notes described by Vijay Gulati did not tally with the currencynotes recovered from the possession of the son of the petitioner.To mymind, this could not be the valid ground for implicating thepetitioner."(emphasis supplied)Regarding provisions of section 193 IPC, the High Court observed asunder:Provisions of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code purposes ofbeingused in any stage of judicial proceedings.The entire investigationconducted by the investigators indicates that they did not probe intothefact if written documents such as agreement to sell, receipt, sale deed,post dated cheques were fabricated for the purposes of being used at thestage of judicial proceedings.On the contrary investigation conductedbythe investigators in this regard fortifies the fact that thetransactionswith regard to the sale of two immovable properties of the petitioneractually did take place one with Vijay Gulati and another withHarmanjeetSingh and Anoop Singh and they had stated before the investigators thatpart of the amount had actually passed to the petitioner towards thepartsale price of the two properties, yet the investigators suspected andmerely on suspicion brought him in the dock.It shall be noteworthy toaddhere that the prospective vendees having come to know that thepropertieswhich were to be purchased by them had become a subject matter ofcriminalcase, they filed civil suits in the High Court for cancellation of theiragreements and for refund of their amount.This is one of the strongcircumstances which favours the petitioner.The investigators felt thateven this was done at the behest of the petitioner.If investigatorswereso sure about this then what prevented them from bringing these twopartiesin the criminal net as well.The prosecution appears to have hooked thepetitioner merely on suspicion.The prosecution took note of thefollowingcircumstances, such as currency notes found from the son of thepetitioner's house were in different denomination than what wasdescribedby the vendees, that the petitioner could not have legally sold thisproperty without having sanctioned from the bank, that the sum ofRs.75,000/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner and he couldkeep this amount with his son if he was so concerned about the safety ofhis cash amount, that the petitioner had not deposited the said amountinthe bank, that the petitioner sold the property for Rs.50 lacsparticularlywhen its value was more than one crore.These reasons, according to mymind, were not valid reasons for prosecuting the petitioner."On the basis of the aforementioned observations, the High Court came todefinite finding that no criminal liability can be fastened on therespondent herein (and the petitioner before the High Court).The HighCourt further observed as under:In the impugned judgment, the High Court gave a clean chit to therespondent.The High Court observed as under:RC.AC3/2003 A0003 dated6.10.2003registered against the respondent.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,126,312 |
Kamini Devi, whose name finds a place in the records, is apparently one on whose behalf Eknath was fighting.That Bhagwan Mandal has been used in this case to bolster up the prosecution case is obvious from the fact that while according to P.W. 1, Bhagwan Mandal used to accompany Ram Prasad Mandal to Sambhugani on previous occasions, Bhagwan Mandal himself stated that he never went to Sambhugani with Ram Prasad Mandal and Dasrath Mandal prior to this.According to P.W. 2, he saw the four appellants, the deceased Jyotish Mandal and five of the other accused.He has also given the names of weapons in their hands.According to one version given by P.W. 2 all the three of them, himself and the two deceased, were surrounded and he escaped.According to another version he sat down to urinate and the other two who had gone ahead were surrounded and he ran away.It is difficult to imagine that if he ran away and went to the village of Karharia he would have fallen down unconscious or that it would have taken him so long to regain consciousness.He is even said to have informed the villagers that the two deceased persons were in danger.There was nothing to prevent him from going, to the police station and reporting what he had seen.As P.W. 1 claims to have seen some of the accused armed with weapons and fleeing away he could have straightway gone to the police station.He need not have gone in search of P.W. 2 and lodged a report after hearing from him what had happened.Between the time of P.W. 2 fleeing away after the two deceased persons were surrounded and P.W. 1 hearing the hulla and rushing to the place of occurrence and seeing the accused fleeing away with various weapons in their hands, the interval could not have been very much, if not next to "nothing, because the deceased had been surrounded when P.W. 2 ran away and P.W. 1 claims to have seen the accused 30 or 40 yards away.The murder could not have taken much time and the murderers would not have stayed on the spot for more than the minimum time necessary.It is difficult to understand why 5 1/2 hours passed between the occurrence at 8.30 p.m. and the F.I.R. at 2 a.m. the next day It is obvious that the story of P.W. 1 going in search of P.W. 2 and lodging the complaint thereafter after an interval of 5 1/2 hours has been put forward not merely to explain the delay, but has been used to rope in as many of his enemies as possible.P.W. 8, Hitlal Paswan, the Chowkidar, heard hulla and saw Bhagwan Mandal lying in the door of Jagiosta.Then he went to Karharia Bahiar.Bhagwan Mandal did not tell him the names of any of the assailants.He, however, did not say that any of these persons named the assailants.At about 7.30 p.m. he heard hulla "Bachao, bachao, douro, douro".He made enquiries about the hulla and the villagers told him that there was a function of Gaon Bhandana.Apart from the words he heard being dif ferent from the words alleged to have been heard by the other prosecution witnesses, what he was informed does, not seem to show that anything serious had happened.Indeed his evidence gives the impression that he should have reached the place of occurrence immediately after P.W. 1 and others tell him about the identification of the accused persons fleeing away after the occurrence.According to P.W. 2 there were only 14 or 15 persons in number.JUDGMENT A. Alagiriswami, J.This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Patna which allowed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Nineteen persons were committed by the Munsif Magistrate of Banka, District Bhagalpur to take their trial before the Sessions Court of offences under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.One of them, Jyotish Mandal was murdered before the Sessions trial.The other 18 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur.On an appeal by the State against this acquittal the four appellants were sentenced as above mentioned;It appears to us that the learned Judges of the High Court have ignored very important points in the evidence in the case and allowed the appeal against acquittal and convicted the present appellants.On 13-7-65, Ram Prasad Mandal and Dasrath Mandal had gone to Sambhuganj in order to collect the "salary of Dasrath Mandal.P.W. 2, Bhagwan Mandal was also: alleged to have accompanied them.Their brother, Sheonandan Mandajl, P.W. 1, lodged a complaint at 2 a.m. on 14-7-65 at the Sambhuganj police station to the following effect: His brothers and Bhubneshwar Mandal did not return even after one hour of night fall, he and his relations Davendra Mandal and Mahendra Mandarand Bibekanand Mandal were waiting for them in their 'bathan'.At about. 8.30 p. m. he heard a hulla in the 'Bahiyar' in the western side "Dauro ho jangailo" twice and recognised the voice to be that of his brother Ram Prasad Mandal.He then took a torch, lathi, bhala and along with Davendra Mandal and Bibekanand Mandal and Ambika Mandal ran towards west raising hulla.When they had gone to a distance of 500 yards they saw the four appellants, the deceased Jyotish Mandal, and four others namely.Rameshwar Mandal, Khokhai Mandal, Chamaklal Mandal and Anup Mandal fleeing away, and the weapons in the hands of these persons.He and his companions identified all the accused persons already mentioned and there were 4 or 5 more persons who could not be identified.He proceeded westwards and at some distance saw his two brothers, Ram Prasad Mandal and Dasrath Mandal lying down besmeared with blood.He then started searching for Bhagwan Mandal and the villagers of Karharia, who had collected there, told him that Bhagwan Mandal had reached their village and was not injured.Later on, a constable and a chowkidar came to the place of occurrence and he proceeded to village Karharia and met Bhagwan Mandal.Bhagwan Mandal informed him that when they were returning home some 14 or 15 persons were concealing by the side of the 'adda' and as soon as they reached near the place these persons surrounded all the three of them.He said he identified the deceased Jyotish Mandal and the four appellants and that he himself escaped and became senseless and fell down in the house of a ha jam and told everything to the people collected there.In the F.I.R. it, has also been stated that the appellant Bhubneshwar Mandal and the deceased Jyotish Mandal had enmity with the brother of the informant and they were always in search of an opportunity to kill him.In the election of the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat, his brother had worked against Bhubneshwar Mandal.There was also a dispute with Bhagwan Mandal for land.In the Gaibi Mandal murder case two of the appellants Jagdish Mandal and Bhubneshwar Mandal and four other accused in the case, Jamun Hajra, Bhupat Hajra, Guni Paswan and Rameshwar Mandal were prosecution witnesses.Accused Khakhru Mandal and Chamakr Lal Mandal are the brothers and Khokhai Mandal is the father of Shyam Sundar Mandal and accused Rambilas Mandal and Ramdeck Mandal and Charendra Mandal are uncle and nephew.Binode Mandal and others are said to have canvassed against P.W. 22, for whom Ram Prasad Mandal (deceased) and his family members were working in the election of Mukhia.P.W. 2 does not seem to be an independent or dis-interested witness.That he was not a disinterested witness is also seen from the fact that Bhubneshwar Mandal and, Eknath Mandal are according to him, said to have talked with him about a compromise of the proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. when he had gone to Sambhugani to show the 'Kobala' etc. to the Sub-Inspector in the case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Even in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 had stated that P.W. 2 had disputes with the accused regarding land.There were proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. between him and Eknath Mandal and also enmity between them.P.W. 1 mentioned only 11 names in his complaint though he gave it after meeting P.W. 2 and hearing the story from him.Not all the prosecution witnesses have named all the accused persons.Although P.W. 2 had stated he knew all the accused persons from his childhood except Eknath Mandal, who was known to him for the last two years and that he had seen faces of all the 15 or 16 persons who came out of the 'adda', he had not stated that he identified any of the others, except five of them.Prosecution witnesses 1, 3, 6 and 10, as already mentioned, are the members of the family of the deceased.They claim to have seen the accused persons fleeing from the scene of occurrence.P.W. 1 says P.W. 2 told him which accused had what weapons.P.W. 2 does not say which accused had what weapon.There is the difference between 14 or 15 persons whom P.W. 2 said he saw, and the 11 persons whom .P.W. 1 said he saw, and the 19 persons, claimed to have been recognised by P.Ws. 3, 6 and 10, who were finally implicated in the case.All these persons knew the accused for a long time.All the same P.W. 4 says P.W. 2 said that the appellants and the deceased Jyotish Mandal assaulted the deceased but P.W. 2 does not say so.P.W. 11 claims that he heard the hulla and then ran there with a torch and saw 19 to 20 persons fleeing away.But he was able to identify only 4 or 5 of the accused, though he knew all of them from his early age.P.W. 13 has stated that he heard the hulla, went to the Karharia Bahiya'r and saw 15 to 20 persons fleeing away, but he could not identify any one.Thus the impression left by the evidence in this case is overwhelming that this is a case where ample time and opportunity has been taken by P.W. 1 and his relatives to lay a plan against all their known enemies on mere suspicion.It is quite obvious that P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10 could not have been at the scene of occurrence.The evidence of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 19, who are all public servants and who were near about the place of occurrence at about the same time and had reached it immediately thereafter, and have not been told about the names of the accused, make it amply clear that P.W. 1 and others could not have seen any of the accused.The contradiction between the evidence of various witnesses also make this amply clear.In the circumstances merely because the learned Sessions Judge made some serious criticism about the course of the investigation and held that the place of occurrence was not fully established and the investigating officer did not take the sample of blood stained clothes for comparison by the chemical examiner along with the blood stained earth, which he had seized from the alleged place of occurrence, for ascertaining whether the blood found at the place of occurrence was the same as found in the clothes of the deceased persons, the High Court was not justified in allowing appeal against the acquittal.The learned Judges started with the statement that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the place of occurrence was unwarranted and unreasonable and set aside his finding.They realised that out of the 8 witnesses for the occurrence and identification, four, P.Ws. 1,3, 6 and 10 were from the family of the deceased.They have also placed P.W. 11 in the category of witnesses belonging to the family of the informant, but they thought P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5 did not belong to the family of the informant.But it has to be noted that P.W. 4 is also an accused in the Gaibi murder case.From the difference in the number identified by the various witnesses, while the learned Sessions Judge thought that the evidence of none of them could be given credence, that the evidence of P.W. 1 who had identified 11 accused and that of P. Ws. 3, 6 and 10 who had accompanied him and had claimed to identify 19 accused, should be discarded, the learned Judges of the High Court thought that P. W 2's story that when P.Ws. 1, 4 and 9 came to him he told them how he had escaped when Ram Prasad and Dasrath were being assaulted, had been wrongly rejected.They thought that no enmity has been established between P.W. 2 and the accused and a suggestion had merely been thrown of his being one way or the other connected with the prosecution party and some facts have been overlooked by the Sessions Judge.But in view of the facts we have already mentioned of his being an interested witness and his story of having told about the assault while in the village of Karharia not being corroborated by other witnesses and the totally unacceptable explanation as to why this witness's story for the first time finds a place through the hands of P.W. 1 in the F.I.R. makes it at least unsafe to accept his evidence.As regards the evidence of P.W. 4, who was himself an accused in the Gaibi murder case and had filed a criminal case against accused Rameshwar, the High Court seems to have thought that it could be accepted if it was otherwise found consistent with the evidence of other witnesses and it cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of P.W. 2 or judging P.W. 4 as a false witness.The High Court is prepared to accept the evidence of P.W. 11 though earlier it had classed him among the family of these witnesses.We have already mentioned that the evidence of these witnesses far from lending support to the prosecution case throws considerable doubt against it.The High Court has said that there was no reason to discard the evidence of P.W. I and other prosecution witnesses having gone to the 'bahyiar' and hearing the hulla and having identified the accused armed near the place where the deceased were assaulted.It is only by giving the benefit of doubt that they acquitted the accused other than the appellants.They first acquitted eight of the accused other than the eleven whose names found a place in the first information report.Out of the other 10 accused: six have been identified by P. Ws. 1 3, 6 and 10 and one of them was governed by an alibi by P.W. 9, and they were, therefore, acquitted.The four appellants were convicted because they had been identified by P. Ws. 2, and 11 and two of them had beer identified by P.W. 5 also They were therefore, convicted by the High CourtWe have already pointed out how P.W. 2 was not disinterested witness, nor was P.W. 4 he being one of the accused in the Gaibi murder case.We have already discussed the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 11 and how in the circumstances of this case their evidence also is not acceptable.This case discloses an unfortunate state of affairs.First Gaibi was murdered and then two of the accused in that murder case were murdered.But even so we cannot persuade ourselves to uphold the sentence passed by the High Court on the appellants.There are too many suspicious circumstances in this case.To sum up: The prosecution party has tried to rope in as many as possible in this case.We find it difficult to believe that the P.W. 1 and his family members could have reached the scene of occurrence so soon after the event.If so, they would have straightway gone to the Police Station to lodge the complaint about what had taken place.P. Ws. 8, 9 and 19, who were all public servants, had reached the place of occurrence soon after the event.He has been made a witness of the events preceding the occurrence only to lend credence to the prosecution story.If he had been a witness, he would also have gone to the Police Station and would have raised a hulla in the village of Karharia to which he ran, The prosecution had ample time and opportunity to manufacture a case against all their enemies.The mutual contradiction among the various prosecution witnesses in respect of the people whom they all knew for a long time and the attempt to identify them, the weapons in the hands of each one of them, the difference between the number given in the F.I.R. and that given by P.W. 2 and other witnesses show an attempt at improving the story from stage to stage.Here the High Court has failed to realise the limitations with in which it had to function and the caution that it had to observe in considering an appeal against acquittal.There was no Justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 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.
|
1,126,342 |
The appellant was residing in Raanathapura village in ErioduTaluk in the adjacent house to that of the deceased Kanagavalli.P. W.1Vijaya, Kanagavalli's daughter, is living in Trichy.Kanagavalli' s son bynae Gopinath, was blind; also he could not ove.P.W. 2 Rajeswari and P.W.3Seethaal were the adjacent house owners.P.W.5 is the relative of theaccused and she is also a neighbour.On 18.11.1998, at about 11.30 a..,P.W.1 received a telephone call fro P.W.6 Sundararaj inforing thatKanagavalli died.Iediately, P.W.1 cae to the village at 4.30 p.. andfound that the deceased was kept in a sitting posture on a chair.He cae on the next day, viz., on 19.11.1998and after his arrival, they wanted to bury the body and therefore, theystarted perforing the last rites in the house.In that process of washingthe body, P.Ws.1 and 7 found injuries on the neck of the deceased as well ason the hands and soe other parts of the body.Therefore, they grewsuspicious on the cause of the death of the deceased and therefore,iediately, P.W.1 went to the police station at 3.00 p.. on 19.11.1998 andgave Ex.P.1 coplaint, to P.W.12 Inspector of Police.He registered a caseunder Section 174 Cr.P.C. as "suspicious death" and prepared Ex.P.8 firstinforation report.Thereafter, P. W.12 went to the scene of occurrence at4.00 p.. on the sae day and prepared Ex.P.2 observation ahazar and Ex.3) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy4) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Sale5) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras6) The Inspector of Police,Erode Police Station,Dindigul District.7) The District Collector, Dindigul8) The Director General of Police, Chennai.(The Judgent of the Court was delivered by A.K. RAJAN,J) Sakthivel, the appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging theconviction under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and sentence to undergo lifeiprisonent for the offence under Section 302 and seven years rigorousiprisonent for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C.P.9rough sketch.P.W.12 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased andEx.P.10 is the inquest report.3. P.W.10 the Doctor who conducted post-orte found six injuries onthe body of the deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to have diedof asphyxia due to throttling; Ex.Afterthe post-orte, P.W.12 Inspector of Police altered the case into 302 I.P.C.and proceeded with investigation.While so,on 24.11.1998, the accused went to P.W.9 Village Adinistrative Officer andgave Ex.P.3, extra-judicial confession which was reduced to w riting; theaccused also produced M.O.1 gold bangles, M.O.2 gold chain and M.O.2 cash ofRs.2 ,400/-.P.W.9 Village Adinistrative Officer took the accused along withthe aterial objects to P.W.12 Inspector of Police.P.Ws.1 and 7 identifiedM.Os.1 to 3 as that of the deceased; P.W.12 arrested the accused and seizedthe aterials objects.After copleting the investigation, P.W.12 filed thecharge-sheet.The trial Court fraed the charges under Sections 302 and 380I.P.C. To prove the charges, prosecution exained P.Ws.1 to 12, arkedExs.On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty of charges under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced hito undergo life iprisonent and seven years rigorous iprisonentrespectively.Against the conviction and sentence, this appeal has beenfiled.Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S. Senthilnathan subittedthat Ex.Further, P.Ws.1 and 3 would adit that on 19.3.1998, they saw the accused inthe custody of the police.Therefore, the evidence regarding the arrest ofthe accused is also falsified.We are unable toaccept the arguent of the Additional learned counsel for the appellant forthe following reasons:P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly stated in their evidence that on the date ofoccurrence at about 9.00 a.., P.W.2 saw both the accused and P.W.5 in thehouse of the deceased and P.W.3 saw the accused while he was coing out of thehouse of the deceased and when she enquired about Kanagavalli, the accusedreplied that the deceased was lying in sofa.This evidence has not beenchallenged in the cross-exaination.P. W.5 has stated that he along withthe accused were in the house of the deceased and the deceased gave pongal toP.W.5 and after eating that, he left the house.A cobined reading of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 would prove that it is theaccused who was last seen with the deceased while she was alive.Within ashort tie thereafter, P.W.2 cae to the house of the deceased and found thedeceased lying on the sofa and iediately, she called P.Ws.3 and 4 and othersand they found that Kanagavalli was dead.Fro this, it is proved that it is the accused whowas in the copany of the deceased at the tie of occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 7found the jewels issing only the next day and only thereafter, they gave astateent regarding the issing of the jewels.On enquiry, P.W.12 Inspectorof Police entertained suspicion against the accused Sakthivel and though hesearched for the accused, he could not get hi, but on 24.11.1998, he cae toknow that the accused appeared before the P.W.9 Village Adinistrative Officerand gave a confession and also produced M.Os.1 to 2 jewels and M.O.3 cash.M.Os.1 and 2 were identified by P.Ws.1 and 7 as that of the jewels worn by thedeceased and P.W.7 also identified M.O.3 cash of Rs.2,40 0/- as that given byher to the deceased one week prior to the date of death.There is no reasonto disbelieve this evidence.In Valanjiya Chinnaal v. State (1987 LawWeekly (Criinal) 375), where this Court followed an earlier decision inSankayyan alias Sengodan, In re, Criinal Appeal No.640 of 1980 , it wasobserved as follows:Therefore, Ex.P.3 isadissible in evidence.On a perusal of Ex.P.3 extra-judicial confession, it is seen thatinute details had been given by the accused which were only to the exclusiveknowledge of the accused; it cannot be said that the sae would have beenwritten by the Village Adinistrative Officer hiself.Therefore, it provesthat the confession was true and voluntary.This also corroborates theevidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 in other aspects.The evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5together with Ex.P.3 and the recovery of jewels fro the accused, provesbeyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who had coitted the urder ofKanagavalli and after urdering her, he had reoved the jewels fro her body.Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.The trial Court has also coe to the correct conclusion and foundthe charges proved.There is no reason to interfere with the judgent of thetrial Court.Therefore, the appeal is disissed confiring the conviction andsentence iposed on the appellant/accused.Index: YesWeb Site: YesvsTO:1) The Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul2) The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul
|
['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.
|
112,638,748 |
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. For grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22.02.2020 by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.76/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and subsequently increased Section 302 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that co-accused Vinod Jatav and Shankar Jatav have already been released on bail vide orders dated 9.7.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.20329 of 2020 and 19930.2020 respectively and the case of applicant is almost identical to that of co-accused.Therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant be also allowed the benefit of bail.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.(Rajesh Jatav Vs.State of M.P. ) E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.CC as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge Rks.RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2020.08.04 17:52:38 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,641,148 |
C.R.M. 3718 of 2019 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25/3/2019 in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No.632 of 2014 dated 28/07/2014 under Sections ssd 147/148/149/323/325/326/332/333/353/186/379/427/435/ 436/411/307/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Sections 25(1)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of: Md. Abdul Aziz @ Md. Ad.....petitioner.Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Sudipta Ganguly Mr. Dipanjan Kundu Mr. Avinaba Patra ...for the petitioner.The petitioner says that out of the 23 persons against whom charges have been brought, 22 persons have obtained bail, including six of them from this court.The petitioner says that it would be common to all cases that the relevant persons did not surrender for a substantial period of time and such ground cannot be applied specifically against the petitioner to make a 2
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,641,401 |
IPC in connection with G.R.No.599 of 2011, now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.588 of 2011, the petitioners have approached this court.The quashing has been sought for by the petitioners on the ground that the entire proceeding is harassive in nature and manufactured one.It is submitted that no offence has been made out on the face of the allegations made in the FIR.However, only the formal portion of the FIR has been filed with this application without a copy of the complaint.Now considering the grounds, on which the quashing has been sought for, I find that the same is completely a question of fact and essentially the defence of the accused.No charge-sheet can be quashed on those grounds.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) sm.In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.2698 of 2014 Md.Abdul Mannan & Anr.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Seeking quashing of the charge-sheet under sections 420/468/471 IPC in connection with G.R.No.599 of 2011, now pending before the learned Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.588 of 2011, the petitioners have approached this court.The quashing has been sought for by the petitioners on the ground that the entire proceeding is harassive one and allegations are concocted.In addition to above ground, the counsel of the petitioner contended on the face of the allegations made in the FIR, no case for which charge sheet has been submitted can said to be made out.However, only the formal portion of the FIR has been filed without the copy of the complaint.This criminal revisional application has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed and disposed of.Criminal Department is directed to deliver the photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties as early as possible.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,643,871 |
The petitioner is arrayed as A.1 along with seven other accused.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, that the petitioner was the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Industrial Finance Branch, Chennai.According to the prosecution, Zonal Officer of the Bank of Baroda sanctioned adhoc PC limit of 70 lakhs and one of the main condition to sanction was that the buyer should open LC of prime Bank and the petitioner A.1 released the facilities to A.5 even though the LC was not opened and he also mis-represented the facts to the sanctioning authority with a dishonest intention of causing loss to the bank and therefore, the charge against the petitioner was under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and the other accused were charged under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC.The petitioner is A.1 in C.C.No.61 of 2000 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge for CBI Bank Cases), Chennai.He filed the above petition to quash the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid case.The XI Additional Sessions Judge /Special Judge for CBI Bank Cases,Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor (for CBI Cases), Madras High Court, Chennai.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,743,619 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant through video conferencing .However, charge sheet has already been filed and he shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted by this Court.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Somnath Srivastava @ Adarsh, involved in Case Crime No.178 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.Order Date :- 16.9.2020 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,275,139 |
Shri K.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the Objector.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 321/2015 registered at Police Station Chipawad Distt.Harda for commission of alleged the offence under Sections 302, 109, 294, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 and 27 of Arms Act.He submits that in the first dehati nalisi recorded at the instance of the alleged eye witness Shubham, he did not name of the present applicant for causing injury to him or to the deceased.He however for the first time in the second dehati nalisi named the applicant to have caused injury to him on the shoulder and on the head of the deceased by lathi.The main allegation of causing fire arm injury is against Dhiraj and cause of death is also due to fire arm injury.He also submits that in the postmortem report there is no injury on head of the deceased caused by a lathi as alleged in the second dehati nalisi.On the other hand, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and Shri K.S. Rajput learned counsel for the objector have opposed the application.Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence collected in the case diary, it is apparent that the cause of death as per postmortem is the gun shot injury, which has been cuased by Dhiraj.There is no allegation in the first dehati nalisi that the applicant has participated for commission of alleged offence.There is no corresponding injury on the head of the deceased by the lathi as stated by the injured witness Shubham, in the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application for grant of bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Harda for securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant be released on bail.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 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.
|
112,762,781 |
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-(i) P.W.1 was the wife of the deceased Subramaniya Raja.They were residing at Arumbakkam Village, Tirutani Taluk.P.W.9 is their son.The deceased was working as Headmaster in the High School at Venkalathur.On 22.09.2003 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased left for his agricultural field to take bath in a motor pumpset and P.W.1 watching T.V. inside the house.At that time, P.W.9 and others came there immediately the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence, P.W.9 chased the accused, but they escaped.Before that, the accused told P.W.1 that, they have murdered her husband.Immediately, she went to the agricultural field and found her husband died with bleeding injuries all over the body.Then, she went to the police station and filed a complaint.(ii) P.W.22, the Sub Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.296 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 302, 392, 394 IPC and prepared a first information report [Ex.P37] and sent the same to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to the higher officials.(iii) P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on the receipt of the first information report, commenced the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P3], rough sketch[Ex.P39], collected blood strained mud and sample mud in the presence of witnesses.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report, and sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for postmortem autopsy.P.W.24 also seized a motor cycle bearing Registration NO.TN-49-X-4302 under seizure mahazar, he invited the finger print expert to take the fingerprint in the scene of occurrence.A sniper dog also came to the scene of occurrence during the course of investigation, there was no result.Based on the information given by A-1, P.W.24 arrested the second accused and on such arrest, he has voluntarily given a confession, based on the disclosure statement, he recovered a sum of Rs.2,000/-, a wrist watch and a knife from him.Then, on further information, he arrested the 4th accused at Sholinger bus stand and on such arrest he voluntarily given confession, based on the disclosure statement, he recovered a sum of Rs.800/-, wrist watch and a knife in the presence of witnesses.Then, P.W.24 arrested the 5th accused and on such arrest he has voluntarily given confession, and based on the disclosure statement, he recovered a sum of Rs.1000/- from him.(v) In the mean time, P.W.20, the Doctor working in the Government Hospital, Tirutani, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries.Contusion on the knee, Bleeding from both the legs and there was a external injuries on the head.50 to 80 ml.of blood inside the head.Hears was swollen.The liver, spleen and kidneys were congested.Stomach blotted.He issued post mortem certificate Ex.P.W.17 is the Scientific Officer working in the Forensic Lab Department.He examined the visceral parts of the deceased and he opined that there is no poisons substance.P.W.18 is the Village Administrative Officer.He is witnessed to the arrest of the third accused and recovered wooden log, cash from third accused.P.W.19 is Head Constable working in the respondent police station.He identified the dead body for postmortem autopsy and after postmortem, he submitted the body to the relatives of the deceased.P.W.20 is Doctor working in the Government Hospital.He conducted postmortem autopsy and issued postmortem certificate.P.W.21, the Assistant Scientific Officer, Forensic Lab Department.He examined the blood stained soil and sample soil and gave report.The accused 2 and 4, in Sessions Case No.363 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Thiruvallur, are the appellants herein.Totally, there are five accused in this case.They stood charged for offence under Sections 449, 302, 396 and 395 r/w 397 IPC.The trial Court, by judgment dated 21.08.2007, found A-1 to A-4 guilty for the offence under Sections 448 and 395 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 395 IPC and they were acquitted from the charges under Sections 302, 396 and 395 r/w 397 IPC.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused 2 and 4 are before this Court with this appeal.contusion on the front part of the brain.Chambers of heart were empty.(vi) P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, continued the after the investigation, taken the A3 under police custody and in the police custody, the 3rd accused voluntarily given confession, based on the disclosure statement, he recovered wooden log and sent the 3rd accused for judicial custody.P.W.24, continued the investigation, examined the witnesses and Doctor, who conducted postmortem autopsy and recorded their statements, after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheer.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses, exhibited 43 documents and 23 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.According to her, before the occurrence, the deceased left for his agricultural field for taking bath in the motor pumpset and she was alone in the house watching the Television.At that time, the accused covered their face with cloth, and entered into her house, attacked her with hands and caused injury on her left lip and stolen the cash, wrist watch and gold ornaments.Thereafter, she went to the pumpset and found her husband dead with bleeding injuries.Then, she filed a complaint before the respondent police station.She also identified all the accused in the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.2 is the finger print expert, he has lifted finger print in the scene of occurrence.He came to the scene of occurrence after knowing about the occurrence.He along with P.W.1 went to the police station and filed a complaint.P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased.He came to the scene of occurrence after knowing about the same.P.W.5 is the neighbour of P.W.1 and he is hearsay evidence.P.W.6 is the Village Administrative Officer.P.W.7 is the Head Constable working in the respondent police station.He has taken the sniper dog to the scene of occurrence.P.W.8 is another constable, he took photographs in the scene of occurrence.P.W.9 is son of the deceased.According to him, at the time of occurrence, he came from the college and the accused came out of the house, and they jumped the compound wall and ran away.Then, he saw the dead body of his father, informed the same to his relatives and he along with P.W.1 went to the police station and given complaint.He identified all the accused in the test identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.10 is the Tractor driver.After the occurrence, he came to the scene of occurrence and he informed the villagers about the occurrence.P.W.11 is relative of the deceased, he turned hostile.P.W.12 is the Village Administrative Officer.He is witnessed to the confession statement of the second and fourth accused and recovery of stolen articles.He turned hostile.P.W.13 is witnessed to the arrest of the accused 2 and 4 and recovery of stolen articles.He also turned hostile.P.W.14 is the villager.He also turned hostile.P.W.15, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur.P.W.16 is the Head Clerk working in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirutani.He received the stolen articles recovered from the accused and also blood stained material objects and sent the blood stained material objects for chemical examination.P.W.22, the Sub Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station.On receipt of the complaint, registered the case, prepared first information report and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court, copies of the same to the higher officials.P.W.23 is the Inspector working in the respondent police station, he has taken custody of the third accused and on such police custody, he recovered the stolen articles.P.W.24 is the Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station.On receipt of the first information report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, conducted inquest on the dead body, arrested the accused and recovered the stolen articles and sent the accused for judicial custody, examined the witnesses and Doctor, who conducted post mortem autopsy and recorded their statements and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.The accused did not examine any witness nor marked any documents.Considering the above materials, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.I have heard Mr.Vivakananthan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Sekar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and I have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC.The trial Court, after disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 9, acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 396 IPC and convicted the accused/appellants under Section 395 IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of material objects from the appellants and as the recovery witnesses, namely, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness also turned hostile.Even though, P.W.1 said to have suffered injuries, but no weapon was recovered from the accused and no weapon was marked before the trial Court.In absence of any such evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 395 IPC and thus he prays for allowing this appeal.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.1 is the eye witness in this case.Her evidence is supported by P.W.9, her son.The Stolen materials were also recovered from the accused and test identification parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate and in the test identification parade, P.W.1 identify all the accused and all the stolen articles were recovered from the accused.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she suffered injuries and she was attacked by the accused and caused injuries.Considering all those materials, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellants and hence he prays for dismissing the appeal.I have considered the rival submissions.11. P.W.1 is the victim in this case.According to her, at the time of occurrence, she was alone in her house, her husband left the house for taking bath in a motor pumpset.At that time, all the accused, covered their face with cloth, came in side the house, attacked her and caused bleeding injuries in her lip and they have stolen the gold jewels, writ watch, and cash available from the house.Thereafter, she came to know that her husband was murdered by the accused near by pumpset.Then, she filed a complaint before the respondent police station.Subsequently, the accused were arrested and some of the stolen articles were recovered from all the four accused.The trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused/appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 396 IPC and convicted the accused/appellants under Section 395 IPC on the ground that they have committed dacoity and punished them under Section 395 IPC.Section 391 IPC deals with decoity as follows:"Dacoity, When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".In the instant case, according to P.W.1, at the time of occurrence, all the accused came inside the house and attacked her with hands and she caused injuries in her lips, but she was not subjected to any, medical examination, it is only the oral evidence of P.W.1 that she has suffered injuries.Apart from that, a knife said to have been recovered from the accused by the prosecution and that knife was not marked before the trial Court.The witness to the arrest and recovery, namely, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness have turned hostile.Turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the accused/appellants are poor persons and they have no bad antecedence and subsequent to the alleged offence also they have not committed any offence and the second accused has involved in the road accident and loss his one leg and they have to maintained big family.Having regard to the mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered view that reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period of sentence already undergone with a fine of Rs.4000/- each would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,707,647 |
Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 179/2015 registered at Police Station Habibganj District Bhopal for the offence under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.He submits that the offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and the applicants are in custody for more than four months.He further submits that the challan has already been filed.He also submits that the alleged offence is only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.On the other hand, Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the application.Having considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On applicants' furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount 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, they 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.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,708,485 |
Ms. Neetu Prajapati, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix is present in person and she has been identified by Ms. Neetu Prajapati, Advocate.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.178/2018 registered at Police Station Tejgarh Distt.As per prosecution story that Krapal Basore father of the prosecutrix has lodged a report on 26.7.2018 stating that in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd July, 2018, the prosecutix aged about 17 years and 11 months disappeared from the house.It it is alleged in the FIR that applicant or any other person has taken the prosecutrix.On the report of the father of the prosecutrix an offence under Section 363 of IPC has been registered against applicant.During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 19.2.2019 and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.The applicant is in jail since 21.2.2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.CC as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2019.03.15 11:26:21 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
16,270,973 |
His second application for the same relief was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn by order dated 27.4.2017 passed in M.Cr.His third application for the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 1.9.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10704/2017 with liberty to renew the prayer after examination of the witness Dinesh.Learned government advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application; however, he has also conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety as reflected in order dated 7.3.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2475/2017 as also aforesaid facts brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner; in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner now deserves to be released on bail.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,713,076 |
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 24/11/2019 22:03:20
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,713,910 |
The applicant shall mark his appearance for the first time before the concerned police station on 09/09/2019 and thereafter, once in a week till conclusion of investigation.The applicant shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of applicant or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses.Shri T.S. Mahadik, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first bail application u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 of IPC with added Section 307 of IPC registered as Crime No.370/2019 at Police Station Janakganj, District-Gwalior (M.P.).The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate bench in shape of PUD.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the applicant for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
162,724,455 |
Brief facts of the case are that Rehana Bano (since deceased) was the wife of accused Mohammad Hussain Ansari.On the basis of telephonic information, PW.8 Mustaque Ahmad, brother of deceased, went to the house of the accused and found her sister Rehana Bano to be dead.He gave information of the incident to Police Station Tyonthar (Ex.P/15).On the basis of the marg intimation, it was found that in the night of 28.5.2000, accused had committed murder of his wife Rehana Bano by overlaying pillow on her mouth.As a result of the incident, gold nose-pin (PHULIA) had come out from her nose.The accused had buried the pillow and gold nose-pin (PHULIA) in his house but the same were recovered later on.It was alleged that the accused had illicit relationship with Asmat Anjum, who was sister-in-law of 3 his younger brother and on being objected to such illicit relationship by the deceased, the accused had committed her murder.On the basis of these facts, the accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife and was also charged under Section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence used in commission of the offence i.e. pillow and gold nose-pin (PHULIA).On the basis of the information given by PW.8 Mustaque Ahmad at Police Station Tyonthar (Ex.P/15), the police party reached the spot and investigation commenced.Spot map was prepared (Ex.P/7).Panchnama of the dead body was prepared (Ex.P/9).The dead body of Rehana Bano was sent for postmortem.Her mother's name is Rehana and she had been expired.Shahnaj further stated that she had one brother, who was younger to her.She used to call her brother 'LALA'.She stated that on seeing her mother, she shrieked but her mother did not wake up.Shri Raman Patel, Advocate with Ku.Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate with Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State.Date of hearing : 31.1.2013 Date of judgment: 14.2.2013 (J U D G M E N T ) Per: Vimla Jain, J Appellant Mohammad Hussain Ansari preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.5.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.147/2000, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Statements of witnesses were recorded.On the basis of the statement on memorandum (Ex.P/2), pillow and gold nose-pin (PHULIA) used in commission of the offence were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P/3 at the instance of accused and he was arrested.After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4 Rewa.On being charged with the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty, complete innocence and claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case.On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he stated that when the incident occurred, he was not at his home.He was sewing clothes in his shop.In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and proved the documents (Ex.P/1 to P/17).The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence.The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against the appellant, convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.He also submits that the learned trial Court had erred in relying on the testimony of child witness 5 Shahnaj (PW.14).He has prayed that appeal of appellant/accused deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the finding of the trial Court.We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.PW.10 Dr.Her death was homicidal in nature.There is no challenge from any side to the fact that death of deceased Rehana Bano was homicidal in nature.According to PW.10 Dr.Anand Mahendra, she died as a result of asphyxia.Therefore, it is apparent that injury caused on her person was fatal in nature and sufficient to cause her death in due course.Looking to the nature of injuries, death of Rehana Bano appears to be homicidal.PW.14 Shahnaj, a minor girl of 7 years of age and daughter of the accused and deceased, has stated in her 6 deposition that the appellant/accused is her father.His name is Mohammad Hussain.At that time, her father was present but later on he went away somewhere.Her mother was sleeping on a cot (KHATIA).On the night of the incident, she and her brother Lala had also slept on the cot (KHATIA) alongwith her mother.She tried to wake up her mother but as she was not responding, she had gone to the house of Bermain Aunty to call her and she came there.When she was asked to identify witness Kusum, she stated that yes it is Bermain Aunty, who had come to her house and Bermain Aunty had seen her mother and after the incident, her mother did not speak to her.In cross-examination of PW.14 Shahnaj, she stated that her father had a shop and he used to go there.It is true that on the day when her brother Lala was crying and her mother did not wake up, her father had gone to his shop after taking meals.She was sleeping alongwith her mother and brother Lala.On hearing the scream of Lala, when her mother did not wake up, she opened the door and 7 alongwith her brother Lala went to the house of Bermain Aunty.She did not know whether her mother was dead or alive but she could not meet her mother from that day.She also stated that her father never beat her mother.He used to give food and clothes to her mother.Her mother used to take some medicines but she did not know the reason of taking such medicines.Rabbulnisha (PW.1) and Kusumbai (PW.2) had corroborated the statement of Shahnaj (PW.14).Kusumbai (PW.2) stated that Shahnaj (PW.14) had come with her brother aged two months.Her brother was crying.Shahnaj told her that her mother did not wake up.Then she had called her neighbour Rabbulnisha (PW.1) and went to appellant's house with torch.She saw that Rehana was dead.They also stated that appellant was present at 10 O'clock in the night but when they reached his home, he was not present there.Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.......".Director of Public Prosecutions [(1944) AC 315)] thus:-''If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the 10 accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts.A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished.A judge also presides to see that a guilty main does not escape.Shahnaj (PW.14) also stated in her cross-examination that her father had taken food and he had gone to shop.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that statement of Shahnaj (PW.14) shows that when her father (appellant) had gone to his shop, they had locked the door from inside and slept.When her younger brother had cried, she opened the door and went out.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C did not offer any plausible explanation as to how his wife received injury, which was found on her body.Recovery of pillow and gold nose-pin of deceased was made at the pointing out of the appellant.
|
['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.
|
162,726,438 |
Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.326 of 2020 an application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C.For the reasons mentioned therein, this application is allowed and Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Advocate is permitted to assist learned PP in the matter.This is first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail against his probable arrest by Police Station Kotwali district Datia in connection with Crime No.439/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S.498A, 377 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence.It is submitted that on earlier occasion, a notice was served upon the applicant in pursuance to the proceedings instituted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the wife of the applicant, complainant herein but in the aforesaid proceedings, no allegation with respect to commission of offence under Section 377 of I.P.C was levied.Earlier, offences under Section 498A of IPC and 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was made against the applicant but with intention that the applicant should be arrested, allegation under Section 377 of IPC has been added.He is ready to cooperate in the investigation.On these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application stating that there are specific allegation against the applicant of committing 2 MCRC-669-2020 offence under Section 377 of IPC.It is further submitted that at the time of issuance of notice and filing of private complaint under Section 125 of Cr.p.C, the complainant was under impression that as the matter is family dispute and could have been settled amicable, therefore, just to save the family, offence under Section 377 of IPC was not alleged but in view of the allegations levied against the complainant wife, then she decided to place actual position and case before this court.The applicant is not even marking his appearance before the court in the case instituted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Investigation is incomplete.Hence, prayed for rejection of the same. .With the aforesaid liberty, this application stands rejected.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Rks RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2020.01.25 14:40:09 +05'30'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,159,324 |
A. No. 1287/2011 Page 1 of 37The first information of the offence was lodged by the appellant himself on 19th July, 2008 at 8.15 a.m. at PS Mehrauli wherein he disclosed that he used to live in Bhatti mines and that on the previous night, at about 9:00 pm, he killed his wife Mrs. Kago @ Guddi by strangulating and thereafter, pushed her at the chowtri.She fell down with her face towards chowtri and that he remained in his room throughout the night and left the room at about 6:00 a.m. He further stated that he was scared of his in-laws, so he came to police station to tell the truth.This information was reduced to writing by Head Constable Babu Lal vide DD No. 3A. The copy of the DD-3A was handed over to Head Constable Rohtas, who along with Constable Manoj and accused, went to PP Bhati Mines.Head Constable Rohtas handed over the accused to In-charge PP Bhati Mines who made entry in Roznamcha in this regard.Thereafter, SI Govind Chauhan along with the Head Constable Rohtas Singh, Constable Manoj, Head constable Chandermani, Constable Sheeshpal and accused reached the spot, i.e., Murti ka Makaan, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines.There, the deceased Kago@ Guddi was lying with her face towards chowtri in Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 2 of 37 the room.Blood was oozing from the mouth and nose of the deceased.Blood was also lying near her head and legs.Daughter of the deceased, namely, Nazo was standing outside the door of the room.Inquiries were made from Nazo.Her statement Ex.PW-18/A was recorded which was countersigned by her maternal grandfather Meer Singh which culminated in registration of FIR.Further investigation was assigned to Inspector Balram.Inspector Balram got the scene of crime photographed.Blood lying near the dead body, earth control and blood stained cement were lifted from the spot and were seized vide Ex.PW15/A. The dead body was sent to AIIMS Hospital for post mortem.Site plan Ex. PW24/A was prepared.Accused was arrested.He was got medically examined.His nail clippings of fingers were taken.Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini.In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he was married to Kago @ Guddi in the year, 1990, however he denied that his relations with Guddi became strained after he started consuming liquor.It was admitted by him that he was residing with Kago and daughter Nazo in a tenanted room at Bhati Mines belonging to Smt. Murti Devi which was let out to him by Smt. Seeta for a sum of Rs. 200/- per month.Although at one stage, he denied that on the intervening night of 18th -19th July, 2008, he along with his wife was present in the rented accommodation while his daughter Nazo had gone to the house of her Bua but at other place, he admitted that when Nazo left for her buas house, she saw the appellant and Kago present in the room whereas in the morning when she returned back, he was not present in the room.He admitted that he had gone to the police station on 19th July, 2008 to lodge the report regarding murder of his wife, however, according to him, he was falsely arrested in the case.According to him, his wife had given him food in the evening and he had gone to work at 11 Murti near Dhaula Kuan.He returned back to his house at 4 a.m. and large number of persons were present there.He found his wife lying dead.His father-in-law and relatives were Crl.2. MotiveOn the previous night, at about 9 p.m., he killed his wife Kago @ Guddi by strangulation and thereafter he pushed her at the chowtri.She fell down with her face towards chowtri and that he was in his room in the night and left the room at about 6 a.m. He further informed that he was scared of his in-laws and so he came to the police station to tell the truth.His statement was reduced into writing in the roznamcha as DD No.3A, Ex.PW15/A. This DD was given to HC Rohtas.HC Rohtas has deposed that on receipt of DD No.3A, he along with Ct.Manoj and accused Krishan reached PP Bhati Mines at about 9.15 a.m where he handed over the accused to Incharge PP Bhati Mines SI Govind Chauhan where HC Chandermani was also present.It has come in their evidence that on interrogation, the accused told SI Govind Chauhan that he had killed his wife last night i.e. on 18.07.2008 and that the dead body of his wife was lying in his room and he can point out the room where the dead body was lying.Thereafter SI Govind Chauhan alongwith HC Chandermani, Ct.She came to know that accused used to consume liquor and used to beat Kago.She also admitted that accused used to doubt on the chastity of Kago.Nazo (PW3) has also deposed that her mother was not having good character.She used to leave in the evening and did not return back for whole night.Her father used to suspect her character.Deepak Kumar (PW4), brother of the deceased also unfolded that accused-Krishan Lal used to consume liquor and used to quarrel with his sister.He further deposed that 4-5 days prior to the incident, his sister informed him that she had gone for work with his uncles son and when she returned, accused gave her beatings saying that "haram ki kamai kar kay lai hai".Smt. Seeta (PW8), who let out the room to accused has also deposed that accused used to consume alcohol and used to quarrel with his wife.To the same effect is the testimony of PW22 Sunil Kumar, who also deposed that accused used to suspect the character of his wife.When the police officials reached the spot, Nazo, daughter of the accused met the police officials at the spot.At that time she made a statement Ex. PW3/A to the police alleging, inter alia, that she along with her parents was residing in a tenanted accommodation at Sanjay Colony Bhati Mines.They were six brothers and sisters.Her father was a drunkard and was addicted to liquor and bhang.Her mother was not having good character.Sometimes she used to go for her work and did not return to her house.Her father used to suspect her mothers character and on this issue they used to quarrel with each other.He used to beat her mother and threatened to kill her.On 18.07.2008, after taking food at about 8 p.m., she had gone to the house of her maternal uncle Deepu, which was her daily routine.At that time her parents were talking to each other in the room.The next day, at about 7 a.m when she returned back to the room, she found the same bolted from outside.When she Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 21 of 37 opened the door, she found her mother lying with her face towards the chowtri.She tried to get her up, but could not do so.She was under the impression that she is lying unconscious, as such she came out of the room and started weeping.Her father was not present at the time.That being so, it was for him to explain as to how these injuries were sustained by the deceased.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 34 of 37Furthermore, the Investigating Officer of the case seized cemented concrete with blood, earth control cemented concrete, a pair of chappals belonging to the accused from the spot.Besides that, after the post mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were handed over by the doctor to the Investigating Officer of the case.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code for murdering his wife.He was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 23rd May, 2011, and order on sentence dated 31st May, 2011 in Sessions Case No.92/10/08 arising out of FIR No. 369/2008 u/s 302 IPC registered with PS Mehrauli whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 1 of 37 of six months.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 2 of 373. Charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution, in all, examined 25 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 3 of 37 the accused.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 4 of 37 also present and he enquired from his father-in-law as to why no report was lodged with the police.Thereafter, he went to police post for lodging the report.As the police personnel at police post did not listen him, he went to police station and lodged the report.He was falsely implicated in this case.He examined DW-1 Arjun Singh in support of his defence.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 3 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 4 of 37Vide impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.The same has been assailed by the appellant by filing the present appeal.We have heard Sh.Ajay Verma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.The prosecution witnesses rather Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 5 of 37 prove the case of appellant that in the morning when the appellant returned back home after work, he found his wife murdered.Nazo has confirmed that when she returned to the house in the morning, her father was not there.Moreover, although as per the report of the doctor, injuries No. 3,6,7 & 8 were possible by hands, fingers and finger nails and nail clippings of the accused were taken but nail clippings of the deceased were not taken.The FSL report does not prove the prosecution story.The so called DD relied upon by the prosecution that the appellant came to police station and confessed his guilt cannot be taken as circumstance against the appellant as the Investigating Agency failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a confession of the appellant.On the basis of DD-3A, appellant cannot be convicted for the murder of his wife.The Investigating Officer was aware of the fact that a judicial confession was required to be proved by the prosecution if it intended to rely upon the same.However, the Investigating Officer moved an application for recording the alleged confession after three months.Unexplained delay in moving the application for recording the confession cast doubt on prosecution story.Moreover, the accused Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 6 of 37 had not made the alleged confession and, therefore, he refused to make any statement before the Magistrate.It was further submitted that the prosecution has tried to build its case that the appellant was a habitual drunkard and while drunk, he used to quarrel with his wife as a result of which, he killed her.The burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and not on the accused.The learned Trial Court has wrongly taken into account that as the accused failed to rebut his innocence and wife of accused was murdered in rented accommodation on the next morning, therefore, the defence taken by the accused is false.The case is based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such, he is entitled to be acquitted.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 5 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 6 of 37Nazo, daughter Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 7 of 37 of the accused is the witness of "last seen" on the date of incident.Furthermore, the fact that relation between the appellant and his wife were not cordial also stands proved by number of prosecution witnesses.Moreover, after committing the murder of his wife, the accused himself went to police station and confessed his crime which was recorded by Head Constable Babu Lal by recording DD-3A and the same stands corroborated by number of other police officials.In fact, the police machinery itself was set in motion on the basis of this DD recorded at the instance of the accused.Police officials were not nurturing any ill-will against the accused for which reason they will implicate him by recording this DD.Moreover, once the factum of appellant being present with the deceased stands proved and the murder has taken place in the matrimonial home of the deceased, it was for the accused to explain as to how the death has taken place.Absolutely no explanation has been given.Rather the accused has tried to take a false plea of alibi by examining DW-1 which is an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstantial evidence.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for interference and Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 8 of 37 appeal is liable to be dismissed.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 7 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 8 of 37We have given our considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.Post mortem examination on the dead body of Kago @ Guddi was conducted by Dr. Sukhdeep Singh (PW19) who found following anti mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:Bruise bluish in colour 5x6 cms locate over right fronto temporal region.Multiple scratches abrasions associated with bruise, reddish blue in colour over right lower cheek reaching below chin 6x4 cms in size, located 6 cms away from the mid line.Multiple scratches abrasion 4 in number located in an area of 6x6 cms over right middle of neck reddish in colour located 6 cms away from the mid line.Multiple scratch abrasion associated with bruise (reddish blue), 5x4 cms, 2 cms away from the left lip, 2 cms above the lower border of mandible.Bruise, 4.5 cms x 3 cms, reddish blue located over the left border of mandible, 10 cms away from the mid line.Abrasion 3x1 cm, reddish, 4 cms below chin, vertically placed, 2 cms away from the mid line.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 9 of 37Multiple scratch abrasions, reddish, 6x4 cms area, located 3 cms above the left clavicle, 5 cms away from the mid line.Abrasion associated with bruise reddish blue, 2x2 cms over the lateral aspect of left upper hip and 18 cms away from the mid line.Bruise, 4x2 cms bluish over the lateral aspect of lower thigh, 9 cms above right knee.Bruise 5x5 cms, bluish over the front of foreleg 8 cms below the right knee.Abrasion 2x2 cms on the lower lateral back, reddish, located 21 cms from the mid line.Abrasion 2x1.5 cms, reddish located over the right lateral aspect of right elbow.Abrasion 2x1.5 cms, reddish located over the right lateral aspect of right elbow.Abrasion 2x2 cms, over the back of middle of right thigh reddish in colour.It was opined that the cause of death was combined effect of smothering, throttling and cerebral damage.As per the subsequent opinion Ex. PX-1, injury nos.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 are possible to be produced by fall on cemented edged chautri.Injury Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 are possible to be produced by hands, fingers and fingernails.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 10 of 37 Injury No. 5 is possible to be produced by hands and fingers.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 13 of 37 (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.Last seen evidence;Shishpal and accused Krishan Ram reached the house of Murti, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines where two rooms were constructed.The accused pointed out the first room.He identified the dead body of his wife which was lying on the chautri of the room.The face of the dead body was down towards the ground.Blood was oozing from her mouth and nose and blood was also lying near the head and legs of the deceased.Testimony of all the police officials in regard to giving of this information by the accused himself and then taking the police party to his house and pointing towards the dead body of his wife is consistent and despite Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 15 of 37 lengthy cross examination, nothing material could be elicited to discredit their testimony.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had merely gone to police station to inform about the murder of his wife, where he was falsely implicated in this case does not appeal to reason inasmuch as although it was suggested to PW15-HC Babulal that appellant contacted Constable Manoj and at the instance of his relative and Constable Manoj, he was beaten and then statement was manipulated but the same was denied by HC Babulal.Rather it has come in the statement of witnesses that when accused came to police station, none of his relatives were present there.In fact, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he himself has taken the plea that when he returned to his house from his work at about 4 a.m., his relatives and father-in-law were present and he enquired from his father-in-law as to why he had not gone to the police.Thereafter, he went to police post for lodging the report.As the police officials of police post did not listen to him, he went to police station and lodged the report.It is not even his case that the report was manipulated by the police so as to involve him in this case.No animosity, ill-will or grudge has been alleged against any of the police officials for which reason instead of recording the information regarding murder of his wife, they will implicate him in this case.The testimony of police personnel have to be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness.(Vide Karanjit Singh vs. State Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 16 of 37 (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291; C. Ronald & Another vs. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2001) 1 SCC (Crl.) 596; Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 14 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 15 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 16 of 37The information given by the accused himself regarding murder of his wife finds confirmation from the subsequent chain of events which reflects that police officials left for the spot at about 9:15 a.m. and reached Murtis house, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines where accused identified the dead body of his wife which was lying on the chowtri of the room.The face of the dead body was down towards the ground.Blood was oozing from the mouth and nose of the deceased and the blood was lying near the head and legs of the deceased.Sanjay Bansal, the then Metropolitan Magistrate (PW 25) has deposed that an application was moved before him on 03.10.2008 for recording the confessional statement of accused Krishan Ram by Insp.The accused however refused to make any statement as per the proceedings Ex. PW-25/A. The application itself was moved very belatedly by the Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 18 of 37 Investigating Officer as it was moved on 3rd October, 2008, i.e., after a lapse of about 2 months of incident.This time gap was sufficient for the appellant to ponder over the consequences of admission of guilt.Moreover, there may be variety of the reasons which may have prompted the accused to refuse to make any confessional statement but from this fact alone, no presumption can be drawn that DD No. 3A was not recorded on the basis of information given by the accused to police.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 18 of 37Circumstance No. 2Circumstance No. 2The motive to commit crime is writ large, inasmuch as, in the first information given by the accused to the police, he himself has attributed the reason for murdering his wife as he suspected her character.Father of the deceased Meer Chand (PW1) has deposed that initially the accused kept his daughter well, but subsequently he started consuming liquor and thereafter the relation between his daughter and accused became strained and accused used to give beatings to her.Ram Pyari (PW2) is step mother of the deceased.Although, she did not support the case of the prosecution probably for the reason that accused is her real brother, but she also admitted that Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 19 of 37 initially accused kept the deceased well, but thereafter trouble started.Under the circumstances, there is ample evidence available on record to show that accused used to suspect the chastity of his wife.There used to be frequent quarrels Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 20 of 37 between them and that furnished a strong motive to eliminate the deceased.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 19 of 37Except for her, her remaining brothers and sisters lived in Rajasthan with her grand-parents.After some time, her father came along with police and informed the police, that on the previous night he strangulated his wife and went to police station in the morning.Her father had killed her mother.She prayed for action.This statement culminated in registration of FIR against the accused.However, when she appeared in the witness box, she did not support the case of prosecution in entirety, in as much as, she deposed that there was no quarrel between her parents.However, she reiterated that her other brothers and sisters used to reside in Rajasthan.She had gone to the house of her bua for sleeping and at that time her parents were present in the house.When she returned back at about 7:00 a.m. next day, she found her mother dead and her father was not there.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 21 of 37It is settled law that merely because a witness is declared as hostile, there is no need to reject his/her evidence in toto.The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon, at least to the extent, it Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 22 of 37 supports the case of prosecution.v. State of Tripura,(2011) 9 SCC 479 where while reiterating that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible, it was held as under:-A. No. 1287/2011 Page 22 of 37The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses.Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable.To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.The evidence of a person does not become effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution."Substantially similar view was taken in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs.State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Prithi vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536; Ramesh Harijan Vs.In view of the same, that part of Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 23 of 37 testimony of Nazo that after taking dinner, she went to the house of her bua leaving behind her parents in the matrimonial home, is admissible in evidence.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 23 of 37The testimony of Nazo that she used to go to sleep at night in the house of her bua/maternal uncle finds corroboration from the testimony of PW1 Meer Chand (her maternal grand-father), PW4 Deepak Kumar, her maternal uncle and PW13 Jawahar Lal.All of them have deposed that Nazo used to sleep in the house of her maternal uncle, however PW22, brother-in-law of the accused, has deposed that Nazo used to go to her buas house to sleep.As such, although a slight discrepancy has appeared as to where Nazo used to go to sleep, whether in the house of her maternal uncle or aunt, but the fact remains that it stands proved that Nazo was not available in the matrimonial home during night and only accused and the deceased used to remain in the house.On the fateful day also, as per the testimony of Nazo, when she had left her house at about 8:00 p.m., her parents were talking to each other and in the morning when she returned back at about 7:00a.m.she found the door bolted from outside.She opened the kunda and found her mother lying on the Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 24 of 37 floor.All this clearly showed that soon before her death the accused was last seen with the deceased.When the police officials came along with the accused they found the deceased lying with her face towards chautri.Blood was lying near head and legs of the deceased.Nothing was found scattered so as to create a doubt that some unknown person has entered or tried to commit burglary or rob the house, in which process the entrant might have murdered the deceased.As such, there was reasonable proximity of time between these two events.In the instant case, the relationship of accused and deceased is that of husband and wife.The place of crime is the matrimonial home.The time the husband and wife were last seen was early hours of night.The accused himself went to give information admitting his crime.Circumstances No. 4&5 Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 27 of 37The burden Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 29 of 37 would be of comparatively lighter character.In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time.The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband illtreated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9pm and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire.On facts it was found that it was homicidal death.Deceased was living with the accused and it was observed by this Court that it was for the accused to give explanation as to how the body of deceased was found lying on the sofa inside the room, which he failed to furnish and as such keeping in view totality of the circumstances it was held that the circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused are completely inconsistent with plea of the innocence.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 31 of 37In view of the above, since the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden of proof rest upon him to prove what had happened thereafter since those facts were within his personal knowledge.It was incumbent upon the appellant/accused to give explanation as to how Kago died, but he took up a stand of complete denial of his involvement in the crime and offered no explanation before Court, however, as stated above, his own conduct reflects that the police machinery itself was set in motion on the basis of information furnished by him to the police as to under what circumstances his wife met homicidal death.To dislodge the circumstantial evidence led against the Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 32 of 37 appellant/accused, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the plea of alibi and had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of Arjun Singh (DW1) to assert that the appellant had gone to work at 11 Murti, Dhaula Kuan on 18th July, 2008 at about 8:00 a.m. along with 4-5 other labourers where they worked till 3:00 a.m. in the next morning.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 33 of 37 had taken a plea that on 18th July, 2008 his wife had given him cooked food in the evening and that he had gone to his work at 11 Murti at Dhaula Kaun.Therefore, according to him, he was very much present at his house in the evening of 18th July, 2008, however, according to DW1-Arjun Singh, he along with the accused and 4-5 other labourers had gone to 11 Murti, Dhaula Kuan at about 8:00 a.m., therefore, a false plea of alibi has been taken by the accused which is an additional circumstance which goes against him and furnishes a link in the chain of circumstances appearing against the accused.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 32 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 33 of 37Moreover, as per the subsequent opinion of Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, injury No. 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8 are possible to be produced Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 34 of 37 by hands, fingers, and finger nails and injury No. 5 is possible to be produced by hands and fingers.It is not the case of accused that the injuries on the person of deceased were self inflicted.Nail clippings of the accused were taken.All these articles were sent to FSL.As per the report of FSL, Ex. PW7/A, blood was detected on cemented concrete, earth control cemented concrete and clothes of the deceased.As per report of the biology division, Ex. PW7/B, the species of origin was human on the blood stained cotton, ladies shirt and dupatta.The blood group was opined to be of O Group.All this goes to show that the theory of homicide is compatible with circumstances which stands established on the basis of evidence on record.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 35 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 35 of 37In view of the above discussion and our appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of the established circumstances is complete and has no gaps whatsoever and the same conclusively establishes that the appellant and appellant alone committed the crime of murdering the deceased on the fateful day in the manner suggested by the prosecution.All the established circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis that it was the appellant alone who committed the crime and the circumstances are inconsistent with any hypothesis other than his guilt.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 36 of 37A. No. 1287/2011 Page 36 of 37We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.Copy of the judgment be supplied to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information of the appellant.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2014 rs/as/ak Crl.A. No. 1287/2011 Page 37 of 37
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,159,359 |
CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 2 of 18Vakila is present in person along with her son Shamshuddin (PW-8) and has stated that she does not want to press her revision petition.On the question of occurrence in question, we would begin with CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 3 of 18 the testimony of Shamshuddin (PW-8).PW-8 has deposed that at about 2.30 P.M., on 2nd November, 1998, he was present with his father Nek Shah at the patri on the Wazirabad Road.They had set up a shop on the footpath to sell masalas.Appellant Aas Mohd. had also set up a stall (thiya) to sell potatoes.The deceased Nek Shah had asked Aas Mohd. to shift his shop (thiya) and thereupon, the appellant Aas Mohd. had abused his father.Akhtar and Sher Mohd. joined him and had grappled with his father.Sher Mohd. and Akhtar had held the arms of his father from the back side.Thereafter, appellant Aas Mohd. had picked up a bag (theli) of weights and gave blows on the chest and abdomen of his father Nek Shah.Nek Shah fell down.In the meanwhile, one Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) came there.The three appellants ran away and Nek Shah was taken to GTB hospital by Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) and Shamshuddin (PW-8).Nek Shah had died at the spot itself.MLC Report of the deceased Nek Shah (Ex. PW-8/A) records that the patient was brought dead to the hospital.In his cross examination, PW-8 has stated that every shopkeeper had a platform or thiya on which they stored articles CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 4 of 18 for sale in the weekly market.Before the occurrence, his father had never quarreled with anyone.PW-8 claimed that potato vendors carried weights of 1 or 2 kgs.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 4 of 18Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) was the complainant on whose statement FIR No.812/1998 at Police Station, Gokulpuri was registered.PW-1 claims that he had gone to purchase vegetables at the weekly market and saw that a crowd had gathered.PW-1 saw three persons, namely, Aas Mohd., Akhtar and Sher Mohd. assaulting his nephew Nek Shah.They had quarrelled over the platform (thiya) in the bazaar.The deceased Nek Shah had fallen down.A police vehicle came and took Nek Shah with them.Aas Mohd. had beaten Nek Shah with a bag (theli) of weights and two others had caught hold CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 5 of 18 of Nek Shah.Blows were given on the back, chest, abdomen etc. In his cross -examination, PW-1 testified that he had gone a Masjid to offer Namaz and, thereafter, had reached the bazaar.Two to four blows were given to the deceased Nek Shah.Thereafter, Nek Shah fell down.Possibly, abuses were exchanged and, thereafter, the appellants had hand-to-hand fight with the deceased.It is also probable that the appellants may have used the bag (theli) of weights during the said quarrel to hit the deceased Nek Shah.However, whether the deceased Nek Shah was hit and injured on the chest, is debatable and has been examined below, when we refer to the medical evidence.Nek Shah fell down and was later taken to the hospital.He had died by the time he reached the hospital.PW-1 has deposed on similar lines but it is apparent that PW-1 had reached the place of CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 6 of 18 occurrence after the deceased Nek Shah was injured.PW-8's deposition does not support PW-1's presence at the spot when the quarrel and violence took place.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 6 of 18Dr. G.L. Arora of GTB hospital had appeared as PW-8/A and has testified that on 2nd November, 1998, at about 3.30 P.M., he had examined a patient named Nek Shah, who was brought to the casualty ward by Ct.Right circumflex block 90%.Left circumflex 80%.The disease was latent and unknown.The right- anterior decending coronary artery was blocked to the extent of 80 to 90 percent from middle to its terminal ends, with calcification.The right and left circumflex was similarly blocked to the extent of 80 to 90 percent.Even the left coronary artery was blocked to the extent of 90 percent.This common judgment will dispose of the aforesaid appeals and the revision petition.Appeal no. 34/2000 has been preferred by Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad against their conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 ('IPC') vide judgment dated 24th December, 1999 and the order of Sentence of the same date, sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.State (Govt. of Delhi) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 119/2003 claiming that Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad should have been convicted for murder of the deceased Nek Shah under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded a more severe sentence, and Vakila, wife of the deceased Nek Shah, has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.230/2000 praying that the impugned judgment dated 24th December,1999 should be set aside CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 2 of 18 and a harsher sentence should be awarded to Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad.We had then questioned them to ascertain whether they were under any pressure, compulsion or threat.This was one of the reasons why we had adjourned the above said appeals and the revision petition filed by Vakila and have taken them up for hearing today.3. Learned counsel for the appellants Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad has drawn our attention to the post-mortem report of the deceased Nek Shah marked Exhibit PW-4/A and testimony of Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-4).He denied the suggestion that several persons, including the appellant Aas Mohd. had called the police and PCR officer had come to the spot.Several other suggestions were also denied by him.We do not think that those are of relevance.However, as per the deposition of Shamshuddin (PW-8), Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) had come to the spot, post the occurrence.The appellants had, thereupon, fled away from the spot.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 3 of 18On the question of weights, PW-1 claimed that they could be of 5 kg, 2 kg.or of 1 kg.Nek Shah was about 30 to 35 years old, was not weak and was not suffering from any illness.Amar Singh with alleged history of assault.The patient was declared brought dead and the body was sent to mortuary for post- mortem examination.PW-8A proved the MLC Ex.PW-8/A. The said MLC does not refer to any external bodily injury except a scar on the left cheek and a scar on the lower portion of the right leg.Importantly, there was no scar or injury on the chest.The post mortem on the dead body of Nek Shah was conducted by Dr. Upender Kishore, (PW-4).PW-4 had estimated the age of Nek Shah as 42 years and on examination, only one external injury, namely a reddish abrasion of size 1.6 X 1.2 cm.present on the outer right ankle was noticed.The heart weighed 300 gm.and on exploration, the following medical condition emerged:-"On cut section old heeled subendocardial scar areas present over anterior wall of right ventricle with thinning of wall.Scarring also seen over myocardium and pericardial surface at places.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 7 of 18Coroneries-right anterior decending is block - 80 to 90% from the middle to its terminal ends with calcification.Left coronary block 90%.All arteries showed various atheromatocus changes and calcification.Death due to coronery artery disease and its sequel.In his cross examination, Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-4) opined that a coronary disease had caused the deceased to suffer the heart attack.On examination of the body, PW-4 did not notice any external injury except one abrasion found on the right ankle.There were no contusions or bruises on the body of the deceased including chest and abdomen.The arteries showed various atheromatocus changes and calcification.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 8 of 18CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 8 of 18The Trial court has recorded the following finding in the impugned judgment to invoke Section 304, Part II IPC :-However, we have to bear it in mind that giving chest blow with cloth pouch containing weights is like hurling stones on the chest.The person who hurls stones has to be presumed to have knowledge that death may be caused or likely to be caused as the chest and heart are very sensitive parts of the body and any blow on them is likely to cause death.We have to, therefore, presume that the accused Aas Mohd. principally and accused Sher Mohd. and Chhote @ Akhtar had the knowledge that the blows given on the chest of Nek Shah were likely to cause death.The blows must have accelerated the death by pumping more blood than the arteries etc. could carry.So, even if the medical evidence says that the death was due to heart attack, the impact had a role to play.The hurling of the pouch containing weights had the likelihood of causing death to a normal person also.All the three accused persons are, therefore, convicted accordingly."It was for this reason that they CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 9 of 18 gave fist blows and kick blows to him and Aas Mohd. gave blows with a cloth pouch containing weights on the chest of Nek Shah.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 15 of 18The criminal revision filed by Vakila, which she does not want to press, has to be dismissed.While partly allowing the present appeal, we modify their conviction from Section 304, Part II IPC to Section 323 IPC.The last part relates to the sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC.Akhtar and Sher Mohd., who are present in the Court state that they were in jail for a period of 2 to 3 months.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 16 of 18However, they shall pay a fine as imposed of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.In addition, they shall also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 17 of 18 each under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The said compensation and fine will be paid within a period of one week from today.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,161 |
This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. by Delhi Administration, is directed against the revisional order of the Additional Sessions, Judge, setting aside a condition imposed by the trial court, while granting bail to the respondent, restraining the respondent from entering the disputed place of worship and the question that the petition, inter alia, raises is as to the power of the Court under Section 437(3) of the Criminal P.C. to impose a condition, which may interfere with his fundamental right of personal liberty and to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India.The petition was filed in the following circumstances :On July 18, 1983, a case under Section 147/148/149/353/332/186/307 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Hawz Qazi, Delhi, pursuant to First Information Report No. 354 following tension and rioting, including use of brick-bats and soda water bottles, by groups belonging to two different communities in Lal Quan, Delhi, over the use of a place of worship by members of one community on the ground that it clashed with the corresponding right of the members of the other community in their place of worship, the bone of contention being that the timing of the performance of "Aarti" by members of the Hindu community in a temple in the area, known as Pracheen Shiva Temple of Hauz Qazi, clashed with the timing of the "Azan" by the Muslim community in the nearby mosque.It appears that the temple comprises of a platform where there is a Peepal tree, with idols of certain deities and shivaling installed around it.It further appears that there is a covered well on the western side of the platform with a wooden "chhajja" around it.While the Hindu community claims the place to be a temple and that it has been used as such over the years, the claim of the Muslim community in the area is that the whole of the platform, including the part, over which the idols aid Shivaling are installed, form part of Waqf property.No part of the platform is, however, used as a mosque but there is a mosque at some distance from the platform and there has been some controversy, even in the past, arising out of clash of timings between the "Arati" performed in the temple and the timings of the "Azan" in the mosque.It further appears that a few days before the date of the occurrence, there was an informal settlement arrived at between the representatives of the two communities, who met under the auspices of the local police, in which the timings of the "Arati" was fixed so as to avoid a possible clash of timings for the "Aarti" and the "Azan".It further appears that a Magisterial Inquiry has already been ordered which is apparently not yet concluded.While the Inquiry had been ordered earlier, the meeting in which the timing was fixed in the presence of the members of the two communities was held on the morning of the date of the incident following a controversy on the subject.The case was registered against 10 persons, 5 belonging to one community and the other belonging to the other.Respondent, Paras Ram Chawla, is among the 10 persons.All the accused persons were granted bail, some by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while the others by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.Out of 10 accused persons, those who were admitted to bail by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge were granted unconditional bail Paras Ram, respondent, was granted bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on August 19, 1983, in the following terms :"The injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature as such the accused is admitted to the bail in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount.Failing which he shall be remanded to J/C. Accused also shall not enter the disputed place till further orders."It is not clear if similar condition was imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in granting bail to such of the other co-accused who were admitted to bail by that Court.Be that as it may, it is not disputed that while some of the accused were granted unconditional bail, some others, particularly.Paras Ram Chawla, was granted bail subject to the condition incorporated in the order above.There was some controversy between the parties, if, apart from respondent Paras Ram Chawla, or certain other persons who are accused in the case with him, the other members of the community are being allowed free access to the disputed place of worship and, if so, if the access to it is in any manner regulated.At one stage, it was given out that apart from the restriction imposed in the bail order, there was no restriction on any member of the Hindu community to enter the place of worship and to perform the worship, as indeed, the accompanying rites and rituals.According to one version, the entry to the place is totally banned, physically, if not on paper, because the place has since been surrounded by a large contingent of the police.There is however, an indication from the file that the learned Magistrate allowed the respondent and certain others to offer prayer and perform rites and rituals even after the aforesaid order on certain days of religious importance to the Hindu community, and there was no fresh trouble on that account.3. Be that as it may, it appears that 3 members of the Hindu community, who were involved in the case by the Police, including Paras Ram, and Ram Narain, apparently were not reconciled to the aforesaid condition and considered it to be in violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty and to freedom of religion and an unreasonable restriction on their right to enter the aforesaid place of worship and to offer worship there and to perform the attendant rites and rituals, as usual, and in particular, on days of religious importance to the community.These two accused and Kailash Chand, accordingly made attempts for the annulment and/or, modification of the order on a number of occasions.On August 26, 1983, Ram Narain, Kailash Chand and Paras Ram made a joint application to the Sessions Judge, invoking S. 439 of the Criminal P.C. seeking a modification and/or setting aside of the condition imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.By an order of August 27, 1983, the learned Sessions Judge made a cryptic order dismissing the application on the ground that the restriction imposed "on the petitioner for visiting the temple is most reasonable as this was the cause of troubles in the area." The application was made on behalf of the 3 persons, as mentioned above, but the order seems to deal with a single petitioner.In the course of the order, the learned Sessions Judge also pointed out that "the tension, in the area and in between the two sets of communities has not yet abated." On October, 27 1983, Paras Ram, respondent made yet another application to the learned Sessions Judge, again under section 439 of the Code, and for the same relief, inter alia pointing out that the situation in the area "is very normal and even otherwise also the applicant being a peace loving citizen".It is a fundamental right of every citizen of the country to hold his independent views on his religion and to worship according to his wisdom.The restraint order passed against the accd.while granting bail amounts to curtailment of the liberty of the citizen in exercise of his fundamental right of religion and was not at all related to the investigational propriety.The revision petition stands accepted."Sessions Judge setting aside the condition, the Delhi Administration seeks its reversal and the restoration of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.When the petition was admitted on November 22, 1983 I granted an ex parte stay of the operation of the order of the learned Addl.On January 20, 1984, I made the order absolute but subject to the condition that the petition must be disposed of at an early date.I have since heard counsel for the parties at considerable length.On March 26, 1984, I was, however, informed that the respondent was not allowed by the local police to avail of the order and the respondent sought and was granted liberty to make an application for initiating contempt proceedings.It was stated that an application for the purpose had already been filed.On behalf of the Administration, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge was assailed on two grounds : In the first instance, it was urged that the order was wholly without jurisdiction in that by successive orders, made by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Addl.Sessions Judge earlier as also of the order made by the latter on the day on which the impugned order was made, the power of the Sessions court to modify the condition, both under Sections 439 and 397 of the Code, stood exhausted thereby disentitling the learned Addl.Sessions Judge to interfere in the Magisterial order imposing a condition.In the second place it was urged that the absolute condition imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate banning entry of the respondent to the place of worship was not in any manner restrictive of the fundamental right of the respondent to freedom of religion including the right to worship and that the right of personal liberty of the respondent and the right to freedom of religion were subject to the overriding public interest, as indeed, the investigational powers of the police.Moreover, the condition imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had relation to a situation that was then prevalent.The disturbance of peace following an unfortunate incident in any local area is not of a static nature but is dynamic and naturally keeps on changing.Quite a few applications were, however, turned down, and perhaps rightly, in the situation at that time on the ground that the police authorities felt that the situation even then was pregnant with possibilities of a disturbance, even though quite surprisingly even when police had throughout kept vigil and a virtual seige of the disputed place of worship.In a real sense, therefore, each application was based on its own peculiar justification said to have its genesis in the improvement in the situation, a premises which unfortunately was not supported by the police authorities, and that the police authorities' fear found favor with the learned Sessions Judge, as well as the Addl.Sessions Judge, who dealt with the other applications.It is, however, no doubt true that it was rather anomalous that two conflicting orders were made on the same date by two Addl.Sessions Judges.While this may raise a question of propriety on the part of the counsel who sponsored the two applications in which the two orders were made, as also a total lack of co-ordination in the prosecuting branch of the police.By such a condition, reasonable balance would have been struck between the two imperative requirements.I therefore, sounded learned counsel for the parties if it would be worthwhile to have separate and joint meetings with the representatives of the parties, as indeed, some members of the muslim community with a view to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute which has over the year disturbed the peace and tranquillity of the area.The learned counsel for the parties were co-operative and their response was very encouraging.A meeting was therefore, convened and besides the counsel for the parties, certain police officers connected with the matter and a few representatives of the Muslim community were invited to it.I have met and discussed the matter with the parties separately as also in a joint meeting.The Additional District Magistrate, who had been conducting an inquiry, also attended one of the meetings.Sessions Judge.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,183,295 |
1 018 L) CRM No. 8236 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19th September, 2018 in connection with Belda Police Station Case No. 80 of 2018 dated 13.03.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Biswajit Giri ... Petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Mr. Dipayan Kundu ... for the petitioner Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Purnima Ghosh ...for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Belda Police Station Case No. 80 of 2018 dated 13.03.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the husband of the victim who died of her burn injuries but apparently made a declaration to the effect that it was her parents-in-law who poured kerosene oil on her before setting her ablaze.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 petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,187,697 |
The brief facts leading to the prosecution case is as follows:-2.(a) The deceased Sasikala and accused were developed intimacy and the accused used to demand money from the deceased.He had already received 9 sovereign from the deceased.Even after that he used to demand money from the deceased.On 2.3.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze.On seeing the deceased running with burn injuries P.W.5 and one Mr.Sathish set off the fire and Mr.Sathish admitted the deceased in Chengalpattu Government Hospital.D.W.1 Assistant Professor attached to Chengalpattu Government Hospital, examined the deceased.P.W.3 sister of the deceased, on information from Mr.Sathish, went to the hospital along with her husband at 1.30 p.m. Since the deceased was unconscious in the hospital, on the next day when enquired, the deceased informed P.W.3 that on 2.3.2012 the accused asked the deceased to come over the temple in the village, poured kerosene and set her ablaze.When his first attempt to set the fire was not successful, he has used 4 or 5 match sticks and again set her ablaze.Therefore, P.W.3 lodged the complaint Ex.2.(b) P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased.P.W.5 is the resident of Murugambakkam Colony.On the date of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., he saw the deceased running with burn injuries and P.W.5 and Mr. Sathish doused the fire and enquired the deceased.In the meanwhile P.W.7 Judicial Magistrate of Thiruvotriyur, on intimation from the hospital on 3.3.2012 went to the hospital at 5.15 p.m. and after ascertaining her mental condition, in the presence of Medical Officer he recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased and obtained her left toe print.The Dying Declaration is Ex.In the Dying Declaration, the deceased gave a statement to the effect that after the death of her husband she came to her father's house.The accused used to demand money whenever he desire.To avoid his torture, on the date of occurrence, in order to cause intimidation the deceased herself poured kerosene on her.At that time the accused set her ablaze.Since the deceased was not in a position to give statement he recorded statements of P.W.3 and 4 and one Smt.Sivagami and thereafter on 4.3.2012 went to the place of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.6 and one Mr.Marimuthu and also drawn rough sketch Ex.After receipt of the death intimation from the hospital he altered the crime from 307 IPC to 302 I.P.C. under Ex.Thereafter, he conducted the inquest over the dead body on the same day and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P.12 and gave requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct post mortem.P.W.2 Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu, conducted the autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries:Superficial burns seen over the chin, whole neck region front and back of chest and abdomen, front and back of both upper limbs, upper part of glutial regions, upper 1/3rd of front and back of both thighs with intact genitalia.Venflon in situ seen over back ankle.She gave Ex.P.3 Post Mortem Certificate and opined that the death would have occurred due to the effects of burns hypovolemic shock.She sent viscera for chemical examination.2.(d) In continuation to his investigation P.W.13 arrested the accused on 4.3.2012 at 7.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.6 and one Mr.Marimuthu and recorded the confession statement of the accused.He also seized partly burnt saree, burnt jacket, kerosene can, Match Box, kerosene stained earth, ordinary earth and one pair of chappal [M.O.1 to M.O.7] from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.4 Mahazar and sent the same to the court and also for Chemical Examination.P.W.9 Assistant Chemical Examiner examined the same and gave Ex.P.8 chemical report.The Trial Court ordered the detention period already undergone to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved over the above conviction and sentence the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant.She told them that the accused set her ablaze.P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police on 3.3.2012 at 19.30 hours received complaint Ex.P.2 from P.W.3 and registered a case in Cr.No.104 of 2012 under Section 307 I.P.C.under Ex.P.9, forwarded the same to the court and copy to the investigating officer.P.W.8 Scientific Officer examined the Viscera and gave Toxicology Report Ex.After completion of the investigation P.W.13 lodged final report under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Court against the accused.The accused was put on trial.In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.On the side of the appellant/accused Dr.Lakshmipathi, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chengalpattu was examined.He found at that time the patient was conscious.The accident register copy was marked as Ex.D.1 through him.After the examination of prosecution witnesses the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances for which he denied the complicity.The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, convicted and handed down the sentence on the appellant/accused as stated above.Aggrieved over the same the present appeal has been filed.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire case of prosecution based on the different versions of dying declaration.The oral dying declaration said to have given to P.W.3 is nothing but improved version and the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate was only after P.W.3 reached to the hospital.Therefore, there is every possibility of tutoring.Learned counsel also submitted that P.W.4, mother of the deceased, though was present in the hospital she never stated anyting about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased.P.W.5 has stated different version.She stated in his evidence that while the deceased running with burn injuries, on enquiry, she has stated as if the accused set fire on her.She and one Mr. Sathish rescued her and Mr.Sathish took her to the hospital.These different versions create serious doubt about the dying declaration and the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 not corroborated with each other.He further stated that the trial Court has not appreciated the entire facts properly.Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that there are different versions in the dying declaration.But the conviction of the trial court has convicted the accused not only based on the dying declaration but also other oral evidence of witnesses.However, she submitted that it is for the assessment of the evidence by the court.We have perused the entire materials and evidence on record.In the light of the above submissions, we have to analyse whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt.The deceased Sasikala and accused had developed illegal contact.The accused used to demand money from the deceased.On 2.3.2012 the accused decided to do away with the deceased and called up to the place of occurrence in the village near the temple and poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire.The law was set in motion on the basis of Ex.P.2 complaint lodged by P.W.3 sister of the deceased and on the basis of the alleged oral Dying Declaration given by the deceased to P.W.3 while she was in the hospital.P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased.P.W.3 evidence shows that on receipt of intimation from Mr.Sathish about burn injuries on the deceased, she and her husband rushed to the hospital on the same day at 1.30 p.m., there the deceased was unconscious.However, the deceased on the next day given oral dying declaration to P.W.3 to the effect that the accused demanded money and called her to the place of occurrence in the village near temple and poured kerosene and tried to set her ablaze.Since the first match stick did not lit, he used 4 or 5 match sticks and set her ablaze.Therefore, P.W.3 lodged compliant.P.W.5 stated that at the time of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m. while she was in the house the deceased came running with burn injuries.When she enquired, the deceased informed that the accused set her fire and P.W.5 and Mr.Sathish douse the fire by using blankets.Thereafter, Mr.Sathish took her to the hospital.Though P.W.5 has stated that immediately after the occurrence, she and Mr.Sathish extinguished the fire and Mr.Sathish took her to the hospital.It is to be noted that the said Mr.Sathish only took the deceased to the hospital at the relevant point of time.D.1 and the evidence of D.W.1 shows the different version given by the deceased before the medical officer and the Magistrate about the burn injuries.D.W.1 Medical Officer, was not cited as witness on the side of the prosecution.When he was examined as defense side witness he has deposed that the deceased was conscious at the time of admission and given statement that she got burn injuries at the time of cooking at 9.00 a.m.. It is the specific version of D.W.1 that the deceased was conscious at that time.It is also asserted that even 100% burn injury, patient will be conscious to give a statement.It is to be noted that the deceased was brought to the hospital by a close relative of the deceased.He is not the relative of the accused.So there was no reason for him to speak in favour of the accused by giving different version.Such being the position, normally the relatives would be against such contact.Even then, the deceased or Mr. Sathish have not implicated the accused at the first instance.P.2 shows that as if the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze.The dying declaration Ex.P.6 recorded on 3.3.2012 at 5.00 p.m. by the Judicial Magistrate when carefully seen, it is clear that the different version has been given by the deceased.In fact, the deceased has given a statement to the effect that in order to threaten the accused she herself poured kerosene on her body at that time the accused set fire.It is to be noted that the dying declaration was recorded at 5.00 p.m. and Ex.P.2 complaint has given to the police on 19.30 hours i.e., 2 = hours after recording the dying declaration, which creates serious doubt about Ex.The medical evidence shows that at the time of admission of hospital the deceased was conscious.Therefore, P.W.3 evidence that the deceased was unconscious in the hospital on 02.03.2012 creates a serious doubt about her version and she has also stated before the police that the deceased gain conscious only two days later.When different dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate gives different version, the oral dying declaration said to have been given to P.W.3, much after the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate gives a different version creates serious doubt.If really the deceased has given a dying declaration as stated by P.W.3, P.W.4 mother of the deceased would have deposed the same.When there are two dying declarations, one, oral dying declaration before P.W.3 and the another recorded by the Judicial Magistrate at a time, that too when the relatives had already visited the deceased, to base a conviction by placing reliance on such dying declarations, is unsafe, since the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out and as the oral dying declaration given to P.W.3 is totally contrary to the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.Therefore, in this back ground we are unable to give any weightage to the Dying Declaration to base conviction.It is well settled that when there are discrepancies and differences between Dying Declarations and improvement in the subsequent Dying Declaration, it is unsafe to accept such Dying Declarations in a grave crime to base the conviction and the benefit has to be given to the accused.Trial Judge observation that normally the person accompanying injured to the hospital gives some details.When the doctor has first seen the deceased, she was conscious and he recorded a statement.
|
['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.
|
194,190,725 |
[C] In the month of November 2016, the first informant claimed to have categorically informed the applicant that she would not maintain relations with the applicant thenceforth.The applicant had, at that point of time, threatened to upload the obscene photos and videos of the first informant.By virtue of this application under section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, ('the Code'), the applicant, who has beenarraigned for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(n), 377,Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 2/25417, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('The Penal Code'),seeks quashment of the first information report bearing C.R.No.195/2017 and the resultant prosecution, being Sessions Case No.333 of2019, pending on the file of the Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::The gravamen of indictment against the applicant can be statedin brief as under :-The first informant was then married.However, on account of marital discord between the first informant and her husband, the proceedings were pending before the Courts including a matrimonial petition in the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi.The applicant gave assurance to the first informant to help her out in her matrimonial disputes.By persuasive conduct, the applicant induced the first informant to repose confidence in him.On 8th September 2013, the applicantShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 3/25 accompanied the first informant for the hearing of the proceedings before the Court at New Delhi.The applicant made a promise that he would marry the first informant and desired to have physical relations with the first informant.Despite resistance, the applicant had forcible sexual intercourse with the first informant.The applicant visited the native place of the first informant and assured the mother and brother of the first informant that he would keep the first informant happy.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::[B] The first informant further alleges that the applicant had physical relations with the first informant, under promise of marriage, on a number of occasions at various places.The first informant further claims that the applicant also forcibly subjected her to unnatural sex.It is the claim of the first informant that in the year 2016, she came to know that the applicant is already married and, thus,Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 4/25 confronted the applicant.Thereupon, the applicant replied that since six years prior thereto, he had no physical relations with his wife as she was not of a good character and he would get divorce from his wife.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::The applicant had also threatened to cause harm to the 11 year old daughter of the first informant.Investigation commenced thereon.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been lodgedShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 5/25 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections, 376(2)(n), 377, 417, 504, 506 of the Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, the applicant hasinvoked the inherent powers of this Court, on the premise that theinstant prosecution is a clear abuse of the process of Court.Theapplicant claims that it is imperative in the interest of justice to quashthe prosecution to secure the ends of justice.The applicant averred in the application that though he becameacquainted with the first informant in the year 2013, yet, the furtherallegations of the alleged liaison between the applicant and the firstinformant are patently false, imaginary and mala-fide.The applicantclaims that the first informant was also a Facebook friend of his wife.Even otherwise, the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at par,Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 6/25do not make out a prima-facie case of commission of any of theoffences alleged against the applicant.The situation in the life of thefirst informant, the fact that the first informant was already marriedwhen the applicant allegedly made a promise to marry her andthereby induced to have sexual intercourse with him, and theinordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, according to theapplicant, cumulatively indicate that the instant prosecution isinitiated to wreak vengeance.The alleged relations between theapplicant and the first informant for over three years, without anydemur, justify an inference that the relations were completelyconsensual and it cannot be said that the first informant had givenconsent for the physical relations under a misconception of facts.Thus, the applicant prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR andthe resultant prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::We have heard Shri Prem Keshwani, the learned counsel for theapplicant, the learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Bafna, thelearned counsel for the respondent No.2-first informant at somelength.We have also perused the material on record including thecharge-sheet lodged against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::Shri Keshwani urged with a degree of vehemence that theinstant prosecution is a striking manifestation of abuse of the processof the Court at the instance of the first informant.At the outset, ShriKeshwani submitted that the period of over three years for which thefirst informant had relations with the applicant, by itself, demonstratesthat the relationship was nothing but consensual between two grown-up persons.It is indisputable that the first informantwas already in a wedlock, when the applicant allegedly had physicalrelations with the first informant.The latter was married not once buttwice.In between, from the ownshowing of the first informant, the latter accompanied the applicant atvarious places and they had physical relations at times withoutnumber.In this backdrop, the circumstances in which the FIR came tobe lodged, are of material significance, urged Shri Keshwani.Secondly, this inordinate and unexplained delay inlodging the FIR, on the one hand, erodes the veracity of the claimand, on the other hand, lends credence to the case of the applicantthat the first informant had threatened to falsely implicate him in aprosecution for rape, as reported to Ahmadabad Police in the monthof December 2016 itself.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::In the light of the aforesaid facts, Shri Keshwani strenuouslyurged that even if the case of the first informant is taken, at its facevalue, no offence of rape or any other offence, as alleged, can be saidto have been prima-facie made out.The allegation that the applicanthad made a false promise of marriage and then induced the firstinformant to give consent for sexual relations with the applicant, inthe backdrop of the aforesaid facts was urged to be groundless andunworthy of acceptance, ex-facie.In order to lend support to this submission, the learned counselfor the applicant placed strong reliance upon the judgments of theShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 9/25Supreme Court in the cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.The Stateof Maharashtra & Anr.1., Dr. Dhruvaram M. Sonar Vs.The State of 2 3Maharashtra & Ors. , Deepak Gulati Vs.State of Haryana andMadhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Umesh Lilani Vs.State of 4Madhya Pradesh & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::In opposition to this, the learned APP would submit that thematerial on record indicates that the charge against the applicantcannot be said to be groundless.On the contrary, if the averments inthe application are considered in the backdrop of the conductattributed to the applicant, as emerged from the material collectedduring the course of investigation, it becomes evident that theapplicant had no intention to solemnize marriage with the firstinformant since the inception of their relationship and repeatedlyviolated the first informant on the premise of marriage, which henever intended to perform.Thus, according to the learned APP, itcannot be said that the continuation of the prosecution would beeither an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashment isnecessary for securing the ends of justice.4 Misc.Case No.16158/2019 dt. 18.7.2019::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::Bafna, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stoutlysubmitted that the claim of the applicant that he had no relationswith the first informant is shown to be patently false not only by thematerial collected during the course of the investigation, but evenfrom the conversations between the parties, of which the transcripthas been placed on record.Thelearned Counsel further submitted that the first informant hadcategorically stated in the report that while she was under severemental stress on account of the matrimonial dispute with her formerhusband, the applicant gave a promise of marriage and induced her tohave sexual relations with him.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissionsacross the bar.At the threshold, it is necessary to note that theaverments in the application proceed on the premise as if theapplicant had no relationship with the first informant.The firstinformant was also a Facebook friend of the wife of the applicant,and in the year 2016, the first informant started blackmailing theapplicant on the threat of falsely implicating him in a prosecution forrape.Thus, the applicant claimed to have lodged a report with theCommissioner of Police, Ahmadabad City.From the perusal of thecopy of the letter dated 20 th December 2016 addressed to theCommissioner of Police, Ahmadabad, it becomes evident that theapplicant has not disclosed the nature and duration of the relationshipbetween him and the first informant, and attributed harassment at thehands of the first informant since 15 days prior thereto.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::Undoubtedly, an accused has the right to maintain silence.In the context of the defence sought to be developed that the physicalrelations were consensual and the consent of the first informant wasnot vitiated, in our view, it was incumbent upon the accused toindicate the circumstances in which the applicant had the relationswith the first informant.Nonetheless, we proceed to examine theShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 12/25material on record to find out whether the continuation of theprosecution would amount to an abuse of the process the Court, asclaimed by the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::With the changing dynamics and a little less taboo about therelationship between the couples without and beyond marriage, theCourts are often confronted with the question like the one posed bythe facts of the instant application.The relations develop, over aperiod of time, leading to physical relations.In that context, when the relationship comes to an end, it isalleged that the aggrieved party was made to give consent for physicalrelations on the promise of marriage.The question which then arisesis whether the consent for sexual intercourse was vitiated by the falsepromise of marriage and does it amount to a consent given undermisconception of facts.The accused assert that the relationship wasthoroughly consensual and the promise of performing the marriagewas not the immediate cause for the alleged relations.The criminalityoften turns on the question as to whether the accused had nointention to solemnize the marriage, as promised, since the inceptionof the relationship and the first informant was made to believe theShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 13/25false promise to gratify the lust.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::The considerations which weigh, while determining the saidaspect, have been delved into and expounded by the Courts.In the 5case of Uday Vs.In the ultimate analysis, thetests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidance to the judicialmind while considering the question of consent, but the Court must,in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surroundingcircumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its5 (2003) 4 SCC 46Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 14/25own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whetherthe consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception offact.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::If on the facts it is established that at the very inception of the making of promise, the accused did not really entertain the intention of marrying her and the promise to marry held out by him was a mere hoax, the consent ostensibly given by the victim will be of no avail to the accused to exculpate him from the ambit of Section 375 Clause secondly. ....................."(emphasis supplied)6 (2005) 1 SCC 88Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 15/25Whether the applicant never intended to perform the said promise?Whether the promise of marriage was the immediate cause for thefirst informant to give consent for the sexual act?The learned counsel for the applicant would urge that the veryfact that the first informant was still in the wedlock when theapplicant and the first informant allegedly engaged in the sexual actfor the first time, on 8th September 2013, runs counter to the theoryof the first informant having given consent for the sexual act onaccount of the promise of marriage.The learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to thejudgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, NewDelhi on 19th November 2013 in Hindu Marriage Application No.127of 2013 whereby, the marriage between the first informant and herformer husband (Shri Saurabh Harit), was declared to be null andvoid under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as it wasfound that on the date of marriage between them, i.e., 5 th September2005, the marriage between the first informant and Mr.VishwamitraShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 21/25Marwah her quondam husband was still in subsistence, since thedecree of divorce by mutual divorce under section 13(b) of the HinduMarriage Act was passed on 15th October 2005 thereby dissolving themarriage between the first informant and Vishwamitra Marwah.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::The submission appears attractive at the first blush.It is the claim of the first informant that theapplicant gave assurance to help her come out from her matrimonialdisputes and the first sexual intercourse occurred when the applicanthad accompanied the first informant in connection with thematrimonial proceedings then pending at Delhi.The fact that HMANo.127 of 2013 came to be decided ex-parte on 19th November 2013thus does not detract materially from the claim of the first informant.Indubitably, the firstinformant could not have married the applicant instantaneously.However, the promise of marriage allegedly made by the applicantShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 22/25whilst the first informant was facing matrimonial proceedings onaccount of marital discord with her former husband, cannot be said tobe insufficient to induce her to give consent for the sexual act.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::Conversely, it must be noted that the applicant claims to havebeen married all along.Evidently, the applicant was also in thewedlock when they allegedly engaged in the sexual act.Could theapplicant marry the first informant at that point of time or for thatmatter during the subsistence of his first marriage? The empatheticanswer would be in the negative.If the first informant's version is tobe believed, then the applicant could not have, in the givencircumstances, performed the said promise nay the applicant neverintended to solemnize the marriage with the first informant.Likewise,the applicant can be said to have believed, at that point of time, thathe would not be in a position to honour the promise to marry thefirst informant.At this juncture, the material collected during the course ofinvestigation especially the transcript of the conversation between theapplicant and the first informant assumes critical significance.Theconversation bear upon the question as to whether the applicant hadShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 23/25no intention to honour the promise of marriage since inception of theliaison.Upon perusal of the conversation, we are unable to restrainourselves from observing that the statements attributed to theapplicant reflect promiscuous and perverted character.One of thecomment attributed to the applicant is that the applicant loveshurting small girls (Page No.181).The reference is in the context of11 year old daughter of the first informant.We are, however,dissuaded by two weighty considerations from observing anythingmore.One, the compulsion to maintain restraint and sobriety injudicial discourse.Two, the risk of prejudging the guilt of theapplicant.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::It is true that the circumstances of the case and theShraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 ::: cri.appln.1052-2018-J.F..doc 24/25material on record may not paint the first informant as a paragon ofvirtue.However, that does not give a license to exploit and ravish thefirst informant.The allegations that the applicant made a promise tofirstly help the first informant to come out of the matrimonial disputeand then marry her; accompanied the first informant to her nativeplace and even assured her mother and brother, despite himself beingmarried, prima-facie, support the further allegation that the applicantnever intended to perform marriage with the first informant.To addto this, the subsequent events, especially the statements attributed tothe applicant, would indicate that the allegation of interest of theapplicant in the liaison being actuated by lust, since the inception ofthe relationship, cannot be said to be groundless.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::Asobserved above, the applicant has even not offered a version whichcompetes in probability with that of the case set up by the firstinformant, especially on the aspect of consensual sexual relationship.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that theapplication deserves to be dismissed.We, however, clarify that theobservations hereinabove are made only for the purpose of thedetermination of the instant application and we may not beunderstood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter,and, the learned Sessions Judge, who is seized of the matter, shall notbe influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove whiledeciding the matter.The application stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2019 22:56:32 :::
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,197,699 |
The case of the prosecution in brief can be summarized as under:'That on the intervening night of 21/22nd March 1996, at about 1 a.m., all the three accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased and knocked at his door.The deceased came out of his house and all the Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 2 of 22 three accused entered into a scuffle with him.One of the accused - Yameen brought a churri from his house and stabbed at his chest while the other two were holding the deceased as alleged.Report was made to the police in the said regard by the constable on duty, upon which police came to the hospital where injured was declared unfit for statement and accordingly, the police had gone to the spot where the statement of the complainant Hajra Begum wife of the deceased was recorded.On the basis of this statement, Inspector A.K. Khan prepared the rukka and got the case registered.The injured expired and accordingly the case was converted from section 307/34 of IPC to Section 302/34 IPC.During the course of investigation blood found at the spot was recovered, certain cloths of the decdeased as well as of the accused Mohd. Yameen were also got recovered.The dispute between the parties was not a major dispute.The same was on account of some verbal duel between them on a matter concerning their kids.The exact dispute concerning the kids of the parties never surfaced.KAILASH GAMBHIR, JThe challenge in these appeals is to the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1999 and the order on sentence dated 29.11.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby convicting these appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five years each.The appellant Mohd. Yameen was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with imposition of fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for two years.Accused persons were arrested and the exhibits were got chemically analysed.After the completion of the investigation charges were framed against all the three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.'A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 2 of 22To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 21 witnesses.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 3 of 22 Statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and in response to the incriminating evidence put to them they denied their involvement and claimed their false implication in the case.In reply to the last question calling upon them to state anything else in their defence, a common response was given which is reproduced as under:A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 3 of 22"I have been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case.In fact Aashkin was in habit of playing gambling and drinking.On the night of the incident, he was playing gambling with some unsocial elements and there was a fight between them and on account of that he sustained injuries.I along with Abdul Rashid and other people of the locality removed the deceased to the hospital-JPN.I remained there along with Abdul Rashid the whole night, but later on we were falsely implicated in this case, at the instance of the complainant since she used to keep enmity with us as there used to be quarrel amongst the ladies."In their defence, the accused persons examined DW-1 Moinuddin, but his evidence was not taken into consideration, since he opted not to participate in his cross examination.Representing these appellants, Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned Senior Advocate strongly argued that so far as the appellants Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid are concerned, the only evidence against them is that they along with the co-accused Yameen had grappled with the deceased and in the process he had fallen down.Except this limited role, no other role had been attributed to them as per the deposition of PW-5 and PW-3, Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 4 of 22 the alleged eye witnesses of the incident.Counsel also submitted that it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that all the three accused persons were unarmed and they had no premeditated plan or design to carry out the murder of the deceased.Counsel also submitted that it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that it was Mohd. Yameen who brought a churri/ knife from his jhuggi and had inflicted a single blow on the person of the deceased.Learned counsel also submitted that so far the appellants - Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid are concerned, they did not inflict any injury on the person of the deceased and therefore, they cannot be held liable for the unilateral act committed by the other co- accused Mohd. Yameen.Counsel also submitted that these two appellants cannot be said to have shared any common intention with Mohd. Yameen simply because they had not returned back to their jhuggis when Mohd. Yameen had gone to his jhuggi to fetch a knife and also because they never intervened to stop Mohd. Yameen from inflicting churri blow on the chest of the deceased which is the only reason given by the learned trial court to attribute these appellants having shared common intention in committing the said offence.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 4 of 22Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 5 of 22 urged for outright acquittal of the accused persons - Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid.So far as the other appellant Mohd. Yameen is concerned, the submission of the counsel was that he was unarmed when he along with other co-accused persons called upon the deceased for talking to his uncle Abdul Rasheed on a matter concerning a quarrel between the kids.Counsel also submitted that due to sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, accused Mohd. Yameen had rushed to his jhuggi to bring a knife (churri) and then inflicted a single blow on the right side of the chest of the deceased without there being any intention to carry out his murder.Learned counsel further urged that at best the case of the accused Mohd. Yameen can attract Section 304 Part II IPC and in no manner it attracts an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.In support of his arguments, counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:Jawahar Lal & Anr.State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 159;Satish Narayan Sawant Vs.State of Goa (2009) 17 SCC 724;A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 6 of 223. Tapas Vs.The State of NCT of DelhiPer contra, Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned APP for the State vehemently contended that the impugned judgement of conviction and the order on sentence passed by the learned trial court are well reasoned orders on proper and objective analysis of the facts and evidence adduced on record, and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court can neither be termed as perverse nor illegal.She further argued that all the three accused persons had approached the deceased at such odd hours of the intervening night of 21/22.03.1996 and all of them shared a common intention to carry out murder of the deceased.Learned counsel also argued that the learned trial court has rightly held that both the said accused persons - Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid had caught hold of the deceased and made him fell down, and they did not move from the place even when the other co-accused Mohd. Yameen had gone to his jhuggi to fetch a knife (churri).Learned trial court further held that these two accused persons even did not intervene when the third accused Mohd. Yameen had inflicted a stab blow on the chest of the deceased .Learned APP further submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that these two accused persons never shared any Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 7 of 22 common intention with the third co-accused has no substance as the common intention can develop even on the spur of the moment, without there being any prior meeting of minds amongst the accused persons.So far as the accused Mohd Yameen is concerned, contention raised by the learned counsel was that he had inflicted a stab blow with a sharp edged weapon of a long size on a vital part of the body of the deceased and the injury was so penetrating that it entered the right chest cavity and after cutting the ribs injured the substance of the liver.The contention raised by the learned APP was that under no circumstance such an offence can attract Section 304 Part II IPC, simply because of single knife blow inflicted by the accused Mohd. Yameen.Counsel further contended that the said offence would still attract Section 302 IPC, as the accused person had a clear intention of inflicting such a severe blow which was sufficient in an ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injury was caused with a sharp edged weapon on a vital part of the body of the deceased.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 7 of 22We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable Crl.In the meantime her husband Mohd. Aashkin along with her son Abdul Khalid also came there, and soon thereafter, all the three accused persons brawled with her husband and in the process, her husband had fallen down.As soon as her husband fell off, Mohd Yameen rushed to his jhuggi to bring a chhuri and then stabbed her husband on the right side of his chest.The injured was immediately rushed to the hospital in a TCR brought by some neighbour and within a short time the injured succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead.The body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and as per the post mortem report he had received the following stab injuries on his external examination:A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 9 of 221. "Stab Wound 6 x 2.8 cm x chest cavity deep over right side middle front of chest.Both margins clean cut, both angles acute.The wound is almost transversally placed.The inner end being 12 cm to the right of midline and 10 cm below the right nipple and 129 cm from the right heel.On aligning the margin the wound is 6.2 cm long.Blood oozed on pressuring the chest wall.Scratch abrasion 15 cm long, placed obliquely over the upper inner aspect of right arm extending to the right axillary.Scratch abrasion 1-7 cm long over the outer aspect of lower end of right forearm.Stitched surgical abrasive wound 3 cm long over right Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 10 of 22 side middle front of chest at the anterior axillary fold.The wound being 5.5 cm away and first lower to the right nipple."A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 10 of 22All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem and recent in duration.Injury no.1 could be caused by double edged sharp penetrating object while injuries no. 2 and 3 were caused by pointed object.It was also opined that injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature.There also remained no doubt that all three accused persons were present at the scene of the crime and all of them were unarmed when they had approached to knock the door of jhuggi of the deceased.We also do not find any material on record which can suggest that there was any kind of premeditated plan or prior meeting of minds of these persons to develop a common intention to carry out the murder of the deceased.In fact as per the prosecution case Mohd. Yameen had knocked at the door of the deceased so as to call him to Crl.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 11 of 22 have a talk with Abdul Rasheed.It is also the case of the prosecution that soon after deceased Aashkin along with his son came out of their jhuggi, all the three accused persons grappled with the deceased and in the process the deceased fell down.As a consequence, Mohd. Yameen had gone to his jhuggi to bring a chhuri to inflict a stab blow on the right chest of the deceased.This act of bringing the weapon at that moment, was a unilateral act of the accused Mohd. Yameen and there is no evidence adduced on record to suggest that the other two accused persons also shared a common intention with him to stab the accused with that weapon and kill him.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 11 of 22There can be no strait jacket formula based on which the common intention can be inferred as proven facts of each case will be a determinative factor.In Manubhai Chimanlal Senma(Senwa) & Ors.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 12 of 22 Vs.State of Gujarat, (2004) 10 SCC 173, where also two accused persons had caught hold of the deceased while the third accused person had given knife blow as a result of which he had died, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that the two accused persons who were unarmed were not sharing common intention with the third accused person who had inflicted injuries to the deceased, therefore by a mere fact that they had accompanied the main assailant to pick up a quarrel with the deceased and being totally unarmed would not be sufficient to attribute sharing of common intention by them along with the third co- accused who was armed and had inflicted a knife blow to the deceased.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 12 of 22The facts of the case are almost identical to the fact of the above cited case.Here the accused persons were totally unarmed and they had accompanied the co-accused Mohd. Yameen to have a talk with the deceased over some trivial issue concerning some fight amongst the kids.They were totally unarmed.They never had a common intention to carry out the murder of the deceased and it is only the third accused who had gone to his jhuggi to bring out the knife and to inflict stab injury on the person of the deceased.To infer a common intention on a mere fact that they had waited till Mohd. Yameen came back with a churri and did not make any efforts to stop him from giving churri blow would not be sufficient to enrobe or inculpate these persons along with the third co- accused.A. Nos. 694/1999, 1/2000 & 4/2000 Page 14 of 22 34 IPC.The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against them by the learned trial court is accordingly set aside.They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.The deceased succumbed to the injury.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the aforesaid appellants stands disposed of in the above terms.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,941,981 |
Thefine of Rs. 25,000 has already been deposited.The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims anddemands.JUDGMENT2004 Supp(3) SCR 356The Judgment of the Court was delivered byARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted.The present appeals are by the informant against the respondents(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone year in respect of the offences under the Arms Act. The matter wascarried in appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the accused.The appellant also filed a Criminal Revision under Section 397 read withSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code')-Appeal was numbered as Crl.A. N. 81 SB of 1992 and the Criminal Revisionwas numbered as Crl.Both the appeal and the revisionhave been disposed of by the common judgment which is impugned in thepresent appeals.Ithad, in fact, noted that at the time of hearing of the appeal by the HighCourt, the accused was nearly 60 years of age and since the accused and theinformant are co-villagers it would have bed effect so far as the peace inthe village is concerned and enmity in the families is likely to increasefurther if he is sent back to custody.The purpose of criminal law justicesystem is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society,but also is it give opportunity to erring individual to reform himself.Taking into account the enhanced fine as imposed by the High Court whichadmittedly have been paid it would be appropriate to fix the custodialsentence at eighteen months.The accused respondent No. l shall surrenderto custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.The custodialsentence has been fixed taking note of the peculiar fact of the case.Outof the fine deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 shall be paid to the appellant.The appeals are allowed.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,200,186 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The husband of the deceased is employed in Kerala and PW1 is working in a Private Shoe company, the deceased is residing alone at Periavarigam Colony.(b) On 5.8.2008, since the Company was on strike, PW1 came to the house of the deceased, and on the next day viz., on 6.8.2008 about 9.00 am, both of them took their cattle for grazing.After registering the complaint, PW15 took the case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 12.00 noon and seen the body of the deceased, prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of PW7 under Ex.P5, and examined the witnesses and conducted inquest between 1.00 pm and 3.00 pm, prepared inquest report, Ex.In the meantime, at about 3.15 pm, he received information that the deceased had proceeded to the police station with the severed head of the deceased, hence, he immediately rushed to the police station at about 3.30 pm, and at about 3.45 pm, the deceased came to the police station alongwith the head of the deceased, and the knife M.O.5 and gave voluntary confession.PW15 arrested the accused at about 3.45 pm, the head of the deceased was identified by PW1, and PW14 conducted inquest with the head of the deceased in the Police Station itself and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Trachea is severed just below thyroid cartilage.Hyoid bone intact and is seen with the head.Skin and soft tissue of the neck clearly incised.PW6 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy.He has spoken about the post mortem conducted at about 12.30 pm on 7.9.2008 and opined that the death was due to sudden decapitation of the head.PW8 is the photographer, who took photographs.PW9 is the Head Constable who took the FIR to the Magistrate Court and the higher officials.PW10 is the Head Constable, recovered saree M.O.1, blouse M.O.2 and inner skirt M.O.3 from the accused under Ex.Index:Yes.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.77 of 2009, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court) Thirupathur, Vellore District.At that time, the accused, who was maintaining illicit intimacy with the deceased, came to the scene of occurrence and called the deceased to go alongwith him but, the deceased refused, getting angry over the same, he severed the head of the deceased and took the head alongwith him, leaving the body at the scene of occurrence.(c) PW15, the Inspector of Police, who received the complaint at about 10.45 am, registered a case in Crime No.379/2008 under section 294-B, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and sent the FIR, Ex.P14 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, which was received by the Judicial Magistrate at about 12.00 noon.Thereafter, he seized a blue colour polythene bag, M.O.4 and knife M.O.5 from the accused in the presence of PW14 Mani, Chinnavarigam Village.Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence with the head of the deceased alongwith the Village Administrative Officer, PW14 and he fixed the head alongwith the body of the deceased and conducted one more inquest between 4.45 pm and 6.45 pm and prepared inquest report, Ex.Thereafter, he recovered blood stained soil and also sample soil under mahazar, and then he sent the body to Government Hospital, Ambur for post mortem autopsy with PW10 Head Constable.He recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the seized articles to the Judicial Magistrate Court concerned on 9.9.2008 for chemical analysis.(d) P.W.6, Doctor conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:Body of a female middle aged moderately built was present.. Head is separate from the trunk at the base of neck.Insets are seen coming out of the gap in the trunk.Head - Skull bone intact.Meninges intact.Brain matter intact.No haemorrages.Thorax - Ribs intact.Both lungs intact and no haemorrages noted.Heart normal size, pale.Abdomen - distended, stomach & intestine bloated.Stomach contained partially digested food particles.Liver/Spleen/Kidney intact & pale.Extremities intact and no injury noted.Uterus empty.Bladder empty.On completion of investigation, PW15 the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.(e) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 9 material objects were marked.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false.Out of the said witnesses, PW1, the daughter of the deceased is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence.She has spoken about the occurrence that she, alongwith her mother had taken their cattle for grazing and after letting the cattle for grazing, they were sitting near a thatched shed that belongs to PW2 and taking and at that time, the accused came to that place and asked the deceased to go alongwith him which was refused by the deceased.Hence, out of anger, he cut the deceased on her neck and severed the head.PW2 was also present in the scene of occurrence, he did not see the occurrence, but only seen the accused running away from the scene.PW3 is another daughter of the deceased.After receipt of information from PW1, she went to the police station alongwith PW1 and filed the complaint.PW4 is a resident of the same village, but, she turned hostile.PW5 is the brother of the deceased.He has spoken about the illegal intimacy between the accused and the deceased.PW11 is the Head Clerk working in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur, who received the articles and sent the same to the Forensic Laboratory.PW12 is the Assistant working in the Vellore Forensic Laboroatory, who submitted the chemical analysis report, Ex.PW13 Assistant Chemical Analyst of Thanjavur Forensic Lab examined M.Os.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 and filed a report under Ex.P10 stating that the blood stain found in M.Os.5 to 9 belongs to 'B' group.PW14, the Village Administrative Officer of Periyavarigam Village, he was the witness to the arrest of the accused and seizure mahazar under Exs.P11 to P13, and also M.Os.8 and 9 under Exs.PW15 investigating officer, after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet for offence under section 294-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.The accused did not examine any witness and no document was marked on his side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.We have heard Mrs.S.Shanthakumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that even though PW1 is a daughter of the deceased, she was present in the scene of occurrence and she cogently narrated the event and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and there is no delay in filing the FIR as the occurrence took place at about 9.00 am, immediately PW1 informed her sister PW3 working in the nearby factory and both of them filed a complaint at about 10.45 am, on receipt of the complaint, a case was registered and the FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate concerned and it was received by the Judicial Magistrate at 1.00 pm, the Trial Court elaborately considered all the materials and rightly convicted the appellant and there is no valid ground available for setting aside the well considered judgment of the Trial Court.We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.Sofar as the evidence of PW1, the sole eyewitness to the occurrence is concerned, her evidence is natural and she had categorically stated that she, alongwith her mother, the deceased, took their cattle for grazing and sitting near the shed belonging to PW2 and at that time, the accused came to the scene and compelled the deceased to go with him when she refused, out of anger, he severed the head of the deceased.The presence of PW1 at the scene of occurrence was corroborated by PW2, that near his shed, where both both PW1 and the deceased were sitting and the evidence of PW2 was not shattered during the cross-examination.Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence.Apart from that PW2, even though not seen the occurrence he saw the accused running from the scene after the occurrence, is also reliable as the occurrence has taken place only near his thatched shed.Even though the sole eyewitness viz., PW1 is the daughter of the deceased, her evidence is natural, cogent and trustworthy.Apart from that the complaint was filed immediately after the occurrence and PW1 alongwith PW3 another sister went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint, hence, her conduct also cannot be doubted.In the above said circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in the appeal.Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.77 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirupattur, Vellore District are confirmed.Internet:Yes.The Inspector of Police, Umarabath Police Station, Vellore District.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Thirupathur.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras S.NAGAMUTHU,J.andV.BHARATHIDASAN,J.Crl.A.No.325 of 20132.6.2016
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,205,455 |
Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing I.A. No.5015/2019, an application for suspension of fine amount because appellant has already deposited fine amount.Accordingly, I.A. No.5015/2019 is dismissed as not pressed.Also heard on I.A. No.5014/2019, application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Mullu @ Moolchand Athya.The appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 366 (ka) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 376 (2) (dha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix lived with the appellant as his wife.The appellant was on bail during trial.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incidence.Prosecutrix has a child.DNA report of the child reveals that appellant is the biological father of that child; therefore, he prays for dismissal of this application.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.05.08 11:27:46 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
194,206,213 |
The case was at sl.The case at sl.The case at sl.The case at sl.no. 2 is was registered in the year-2010 for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 & 354 of IPC.The case at sl.no. 3 was registered in the year- 2011 under the Gambling Act. The cases at sl.The case at sl.There has to be proper consideration and appreciation for recording the satisfaction which has to be 8 passed on true materials.no. 1 was registered in the year-2003 for commission of the offence under Sections 454 & 380 of IPC.The impugned orders dated 05.12.2017 (Annexure-P/1) and 10.01.2018 (Annexure-P/2) are quashed.No order as to cost.(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Amitabh Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2018.04.23 21:21:02 -07'00' 12
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,222,898 |
2. Learned APP submits that ld.Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the complainant has identified the accused persons in the Court.He further submits that the accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings.Additionally, PW1 has categorically deposed that he withdrew Rs.86,000/- from HDFC Bank, GK-II, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.After withdrawing the amount, he reached near his motorcycle No. DL-3S-AR-3818 which was parked in front of the bank.When he was trying to start his motorcycle, a person from the opposite side of the road came and he put a country made pistol on his chest and pushed the trigger twice, but it was misfired.That person was trying to snatch his bag containing the abovesaid amount.He pushed him, as a result Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 2 of 11 of which, the country made pistol fell down on the ground.He put his leg on the said country made pistol.When the accused could not snatch his bag, he put off his helmet and hit the same on the head of complainant thrice.Thereafter, that person again wore helmet and ran towards the road where one person was sitting on a motorcycle at the road.Thereafter, motorcyclist and that person ran away from the spot.Accordingly, he informed the police.He handed over the country made pistol to police.His statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. Police prepared the sketch of the country made pistol and the cartridges; same is Ex.PW1/C.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 2 of 11APP for state has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW4 SI Naresh Hooda, who deposed that on 07.01.2009 the investigation of the case FIR No.04/2009, police station Kalkaji was assigned to him.On 09.01.2009, he interrogated both the accused persons present in the Court; at that time, the accused persons were in police remand in the said case.Accused persons Crl.M.A.No.9636/2011(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.M.A.No.9635/2011(delay) For the reasons explained, delay of 33 days stands condoned.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 1 of 11The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed by ld.Additional Sessions Judge/South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby, the accused persons were acquitted from all the charges against them in case FIR No.148/2008 at police station C. R. Park, New Delhi.The accused persons disclosed about their involvement in case FIR No.148/2008, police station C. R. Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 3 of 11 Park and he recorded their disclosure statement.Further deposed that HC Harish Chandra was also associated with the investigation and during recording of disclosure statements of accused persons.Information was given to the IO of the present case and regarding disclosure statement of the accused persons.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 3 of 11I note that in the cross-examination, he has admitted that when he received the case file, it was containing the disclosure statement of the accused persons recorded by ASI Balbir Singh.Further admitted the suggestion that no recovery pertaining to the present case effected pursuant to the disclosure statements.Trial Judge has tried both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 393 r/w 34 IPC and Section 397 IPC.On 21.08.2008 at about 02:15PM, complainant Anoop Kumar Batham had withdrawn Rs.86,000/- from HDFC Bank, Masjid Moth.After the withdrawal of this amount, he had kept Crl.He was ready to start his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-AR-3818, at the same time, one person came over to his direction from the opposite side of the road and put a country made pistol on his chest and pushed the trigger twice, however, the same misfired.The said person also made an attempt to snatch the bag containing Rs.86,000/. The complainant pushed him, as a result of which, the country made pistol fell down and the said person put off his helmet and hit the complainant on the head thrice.Thereafter, he wore the helmet and ran towards the other side of the road where one more person was waiting on the motorcycle and immediately they ran away from the spot.The country made pistol of .315 bore was handed over the police officer, SI K. P. Singh.His statement was recorded and the case was got registered.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 4 of 11Trial Judge has firstly discussed the site plan of the place of occurrence which was prepared.Later on the accused was arrested in some other case in case FIR No.04/2009 police station Kalkaji, in which they had allegedly Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 5 of 11 made disclosure statement with regard to their involvement in the present case.The information regarding said disclosure statement was conveyed to the IO of the present case and who arrested the accused persons and again recorded their disclosure statement in the present case.Accused refused to join the TIP proceedings during the investigation.The charge- sheet was filed in the Court after obtaining FSL report with regard to the country made pistol which was recovered from the spot.The said country made pistol was opinioned to be a 'fire-arm' as defined under the Arms Act.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 5 of 11The prosecution had examined seven witnesses in all.In the statement under Section 313 Cr P C accused persons have denied the evidence against them, but had not preferred to lead any evidence in their defence.The Trial Judge has discussed the basic principle of law that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and this onus, never shifts.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 6 of 11 were not apprehended at the spot.The incident had taken place on 21.08.2008 and the accused persons were arrested after about six months i.e. on 21.02.2009 in the present case.Accused persons during the investigation had refused to join the TIP proceedings; however, no adverse inference was drawn against them for refusing to participate in the TIP for the reasons that when they were produced in the Court on 21.02.2009, on the basis of the Production Warrants, they were not in muffled face.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 6 of 1111. PW-5 SI Jamil Ahmad who had arrested the accused persons in the present case had admitted in his cross- examination that the accused persons were not in muffled face nor he had moved any application for keeping the accused persons in muffled face, when he sought their judicial custody remand.Therefore, the simple refusal to join TIP proceedings cannot be read in evidence against them.The next question as was dealt with by the Trial Judge was, about the evidentiary value of the identification of the accused by PW1 in the Court.As per his statement, it was Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 7 of 11 accused Mohammad Ishtiaq, who had put the country made pistol on his chest and pushed the trigger twice, but the same was misfired.Accused Mohammad Mazid was sitting on the motorcycle on the opposite side of the road and thereafter both the accused persons had ran away.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 7 of 11I note that in the cross-examination, PW1 Sh.Anoop Kumar Batham has admitted that accused Mohammad Ishtiaq who came come to him, was wearing a helmet, he further deposed that the person who was standing on the opposite side of the road and also wearing helmet.Further he stated that the distance between the motorcycle and the place of incident was about 30-40 meters.There was a divider on the road and the vehicles were plying on the road.So far as the question of identity of the persons who was sitting on the motorcycle on the other side of the road is concerned, there is no cogent evidence that the accused Mohammad Mazid was the person who was sitting on the motorcycle.The Trial Judge has observed that even the make of the motorcycle has not been mentioned anywhere in the Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 8 of 11 statement nor its registration number has been noticed.Therefore, there was no question of identification of person sitting at a distance of 30-40 meters wearing helmet.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 8 of 11Trial Judge has also dealt with the question of identity of accused Mohammad Ishtiaq.In the examination-in- chief of PW1 Shri Anoop Kumar Batham has deposed that the accused had tried to snatch the bag from him, but he could not snatch his bag and then put off his helmet and hit on his head thrice.In the statement recorded, Ex.PW1/A, however, this fact was not stated by PW1 Shri Anoop Kumar Batham.When he was asked this question in his cross-examination, he stated that he has told to the police that when the accused has come to him, and could not snatch the bag from him, he put off his helmet and hit on his head thrice.Trial Judge considered this fact to be improvement, as this fact is not mentioned in the statement Ex.PW1/A.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 9 of 11Shri Anoop Kumar Batham has made vital improvement in the statement on a very crucial aspect of the case as to the identity of the accused.Apart from this, there is no evidence on record that the complainant/ PW1 Shri Anoop Kumar Batham had withdrew the sum of Rs.86,000/- from the bank.IO had also did not seize the said currency notes of Rs.86,000/- from the complainant, nor any proceedings has been drawn with regard to this.Keeping the aforesaid discussion into view, the Trial Judge has dealt with all the issues in a proper manner and I find no discrepancy or illegality in the judgment passed by the Ld.Trial Court.Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of Ld.Trial Court.I concur the same.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 10 of 11L.P.No.395/2011 Page 10 of 11The Criminal Leave Petition No.395/2011 is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J August 17th 2011 Mk Crl.L.P.No.395/2011 Page 11 of 11L.P.No.395/2011 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,942,257 |
2.In these two petitions, the petitioner challenges action of the 2nd respondent in(i)issuing a letter dated 16.06.2007 calling upon the petitioner who is in America to attend enquiry on the complaint preferred by his since divorced wife Latha Seshadri/ 3rd respondent.(ii)addressing a letter to the Consul General of India, New York Consulate General of India, America seeking deportation to India of the petitioner.C O M M O N O R D E R As the petitioner and respondents are common in both petitions and the same question is raised for consideration in both, they can be disposed of by a common order.The petitioner and his then wife/3rd respondent were staying together at the United States of America and had been separated for a period of over two years.The custody of their minor child was with the 3rd respondent.The petitioner had moved the Court of Common Pleas, Division at Domestic Relations, Cuyahoga County, Ohio for divorce.Visitation rights were granted to the petitioner in such proceedings and the petitioner also was directed to effect payment towards the care of the minor child.The 3rd respondent has filed an application in the said Court seeking permission to temporarily leave the United States which was rejected by such Court.O.P.19773 of 2007, the notice issued by the 2nd respondent was challenged, the same was withdrawn and by way of the present Criminal Original Petitions both the C.T.SELVAM, J.gmnotice dated 16.06.2007 as also the letter addressed to Consul General of India, New York Consulate General of India have been challenged, acceptable.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions shall stand allowed.The letter dated 16.06.2007 issued to the petitioner and the letter dated 16.06.2007 issued to the Consul General of India, New York Consulate General of India, 3, East, 6th Street, Newyork, NY 10021 by the 2nd respondent shall stand quashed.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,942,292 |
JUDGMENT Choudhuri, J.The appellant Ramchandra son of Chamru was prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Laxman son of Tima of Umrer.He was convicted under Section 304, Part I, of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.Ramehandra used to visit the house of Mst.Yashodi (P. W. 1) frequently as he had illicit connection with her.On the night of the 31st July 1952 he went to her house as usual.Laxman, who was the brother of Mst.Yashodi, happened to go there and finding Ramehandra sitting with his sister beat him with a lathi.Ramehandra left the house of Mst.Laxman followed him.There was a scuffle between them when they grappled with each other.During this scuffle Ramehandra stabbed him with a 'gupti' and escaped.Laxman was removed to the house of his sister Mst.Yashodi where he succumbed to the injury inflicted by Ramchandra.The above facts are not now disputed.The defence of the appellant Ramehandra was that he was beaten with a stick by Laxman inside Mst.Yashodi's house.He managed to release himself from his clutches with great difficulty and as he was running towards his house he was chased by Laxman who gave him some more blows with his stick and then grappled with him and wanted to throttle him.He struggled to free himself and though he cried for help he received none.During this struggle he pulled out a stick which he had picked up from the house of Mst.Yashodi and which Laxman had kept pressed by his foot during the scuffle.As he pulled out this stick Laxman lost his balance and fell forcibly on it receiving the injury.He stated that he did not know that this stick was a weapon and pleaded that he never intended to kill Laxman.He stated that he used the stick thinking it to be stick in order to save himself but unfortunately it hit the deceased.The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused exceeded the right of private defence in causing the death of Laxman and convicted him under Section 304, Part I, of the Indian Penal Code as stated above.The appeal is directed against this finding of the trial Court.The only ground raised is that the case fell within the purview of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant ought to have been acquitted.The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to paragraphs Nos. 24, 25, 28 and 80 of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, and argued that the circumstances under which the appellant had inflicted the injury to Laxman justified the plea of self-defence, It was contended on behalf of the appellant that when be was assaulted by Laxman he was not bound to modulate his attack and with the instinct of self-preservation upon him he pursued his defence a little further.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant had received six stick blows from deceased Laxman before there was grappling between them near Kacharu's house.It is also clear from the evidence of Bhullu (P. W. 4) that during the scuffle which ensued after the appellant was beaten several persons who had assembled near the house of Mst.Yashodi had approved of Laxman's action, so that the appellant may be prevented from visiting Mst.Yashodi's house.There is also satisfactory evidence to show that the stick (Article D) which was used by Laxman in beating the appellant was a fairly heavy stick which according to Dr. Phadke could cause a fatal blow.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also after weighing the oral evidence on record come to the conclusion that the deceased was in an advantageous position even during the grappling and therefore the appellant was entitled to defend his body against the attack by the deceased.The appellant's right of private defence commenced at the stage when he received stick blows from the deceased during the assault which took place near Kachru's house.It has been established that immediately after Laxman gave two stick blows to the appellant, Laxman's stick fell down during the scuffle between him and the appellant.It is thus clear that when the deceased was stabbed by the appellant during the scuffle he had no lathi in his hands.There could therefore be no reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that Laxman would cause grievous hurt or death.The appellant in his defence stated that when Laxman grappled with him he wanted to kill him by throttling.Goma (D. W. 1) has deposed that Laxman was pressing the neck of the appellant Ramchandra with both of his hands.His evidence was not believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in view of the fact that he is closely related to Mst.Yashodi (P. W. (1) who has been trying to shield the appellant.Dr. Phadke who examined the appellant soon after the occurrence did not find any marks of violence on his neck.Kachru (P. W. 2), Bhullu (P. W. 4) and Yashoda (P. W. 12) do not support the version given by the appellant.Ramdayal (P. W. 11) was evidently influenced.He was disbelieved when in his cross-examination he stated that the appellant's throat was being pressed by Laxman immediately before he was struck.In order to establish an exercise of the right of private defence, it is absolutely necessary to detail the exact circumstances which led the accused to strike the blow in question with his 'gupti', and obviously such a defence can seldom be successfully made out when the accused's case is that he did not strike the blow at all.In his replies to questions Nos. 17 to 20, he has persistently maintained that he did not stab Laxman during the scuffle.He stated that he lost his balance and Laxman fell on his chest and cried out "Oh father, I am dead".Immediately after, he ran away.The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to defend his body against the attack by the deceased Laxman.There has been criminal intimacy between the appellant and Mst.Yashodi (P. W. 1), and the appellant had gone to her on invitation.It was by chance that the deceased happened to arrive there and took objection to the visit of the appellant.Yashodi that she had remonstrated to her brother for beating the appellant as she herself had called him.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,803,511 |
A.(MD)No.503 of 2017During December 2008, A-2 Arivalagan was attacked by the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) and a case was registered against P.W.-23, deceased and others.This resulted in a strong enmity between A-2 Arivalagan and the family of the deceased.On 10.02.2009 one Ananthi, who is the sister of the appellant, is said to have been teased by the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) and three others and a complaint was also given before the Palam (Bridge) Police Station and the same was enquired and closed as settled.The deceased Ilango has given a complaint against A-4 Kalaiselvan and his father on 04.04.2008 before the Munneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli and the same was registered in Crime No. 96/2008 for offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC.On 12.02.2009, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased Ilango and his cousin brother (P.W.-1) attended a funeral of one Anthonyammal at 3/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Kongathanparai Village and while returning from the burial ground, the appellant along with A-2 to A-4 is said to have attacked the deceased and the appellant was armed with aruval and A2 to A-4 were armed with sticks.The deceased was asked about the whereabouts of his son (P.W.-23) and the deceased is said to have told them that the matter has already been settled between the parties.Immediately, on the instigation of A-2, A-1 is said to have caused indiscriminate cut injuries with aruval on the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries on his neck, head, hand and right cheek.In continuation to the above attack, the same accused persons went to the house of the deceased and attacked P.W.-2, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.-3, who is the sister of P.W.-2 and caused them grievous injuries.Complaint and the materials collected in the course of investigation:The deceased, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were taken in an Auto- rickshaw by P.W.-1 along with P.W.-10 and P.W.-5 to the Tirunelveli 4/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli and were admitted at about 6.50 p.m. P.W.-28, who was the Doctor available on duty, treated all these three persons and issued wound certificates (Exs.P-29, 30 and 31).The deceased Ilango died at about 8.15 p.m. on 12.02.2009 and based on the information received from the Outpost Police Station in the hospital, at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.-26, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.-1 and reduced it into the complaint (Ex.P-8).This complaint was attested by P.W.-1 and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.52/2009 (Ex.P-28) on 13.02.2009 at about 00.30 hrs.for offence under Sections 294(b), 109, 452, 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC.The investigation was handed over to the Inspector of Police (P.W.-29) and he visited the scene of crime at about 7.00 a.m. and prepared the observation mahazar in the presence of witness (P.W.-7) and the rough sketch (Ex.P-33).He also collected the material objects at the scene of crime (M.O.-8 to M.O.-11).He proceeded to the place, where P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were attacked and recovered material objects (M.O.-12 and M.O.-13).He thereafter proceeded to the hospital and 5/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased between 11 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars.He prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-34) and thereafter sent the deadbody through the Head Constable with a requisition for postmortem.The bloodstained clothes were recovered from the body of the deceased (M.O.-18 and M.O.-19).The postmortem was conducted by P.W.-18 and the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P-18) was collected.The 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses were recorded and all the seized material objects were produced before the Court in Form – 95 with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis.76/2013 dated 09.11.2016, convicting and sentencing the appellant/A-1 in the following manner:S. Provisions Sentence of Fine amount Acquittal No. under which imprisonment convicted 1 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/- in default -He, thereafter, handed over the investigation to P.W.-31, who laid the final report before the Judicial 6/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Magistrate, No.V, Tirunelveli, on 05.04.2012 and the same was taken on file.The final report was filed as against four accused persons.The case was thereafter committed to the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the trial Court framed the following charges against the accused persons:S. Rank of Offences for which charges were framed No. the accused 1 A-1 302, 294(b), 307 (2 counts), 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) (2 counts) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (3 counts) 2 A-2 294(b), 302 r/w 114, 307 r/w 34 (2 counts), 452 IPC 3 A-3 302 r/w 34, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 (2 counts) & 342 IPC 4 A-4 302 r/w 34, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 (2 counts) and 342 IPCThe prosecution examined P.W.-1 to P.W.-31 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.The trial Court questioned A-1 to A-4 under Section 313(1) 7/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017(b) of Cr.P.C. by putting all the incriminating materials collected in the course of the trial and the accused persons denied the same as false.The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant in the manner stated supra.The trial Court convicted A-2 to A-4 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC (two counts) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. A-2 to A-4 were further convicted for offence under Section 342 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.It was brought to the notice of this Court that A-2 to A-4 filed an appeal before this Court in Cr.A.(MD) Nos.466/2016 and 469/2016 and this Court dismissed the appeals, by judgment dated 07.07.2017 and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.8/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Submissions:Mr.A.R.Jeyaruthran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made the following submissions:● The prosecution has concealed the genesis of the case.The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-28) and the wound certificates marked as Ex.P-29 to Ex.P-31 clearly show that one Siva (son of P.W.-3) had accompanied the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital and he was not examined as a witness in this case.The Auto-rickshaw, in which, the deceased and the injured were carried was not produced as a material object and the Auto Driver was not examined by the prosecution.Even though P.W.-4 states in his evidence that there were 200 to 300 persons, who attended the funeral of Anthonyammal, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.● There is complete contradiction with regard to the injuries found 10/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 in the wound certificate pertaining to the deceased (Ex.P-31) and the injuries as found in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P-18).As against seven injuries found in the wound certificate, 16 injuries are found in the postmortem certificate.● The recovery of the aruval (M.O.-4) was not proved by the prosecution and P.W.-13, who was the witness for the recovery, turned hostile.● The reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting A-2 to A-4 for the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC will equally apply to the appellant also and the Court below ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.Per contra, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, made the following submissions:● There are three motives that have been attributed in this case 11/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 and all the motives have been sufficiently spoken by the witnesses and the relevant documents were also marked before the trial Court and the same clinches the case of the prosecution insofar as the motive behind the crime is concerned.Even though P.W.-6 was treated as hostile, some portions in his evidence also corroborate the evidence of P.W.-4 and a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.-6 clearly proves the offence committed by the appellant.● P.W.-26, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about and explained the reason why the FIR was registered only at 00.30 hrs., even though the incident took place at 5.30 p.m., on 12.02.2009 and the evidence of P.W.-1 can be taken into account atleast to the extent of the complaint given to P.W.-26 and the consequent FIR that was registered.12/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.● A-2 to A-4 were arrested and based on their confession, the sticks used by them for committing the offence (M.O.-14 to M.O.-16) was recovered in the presence of witnesses.● The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who are the injured witnesses, clearly speaks about the specific overt-acts committed by the accused persons and taking into consideration the previous enmity between the parties, the same cannot be doubted and the Court below was right in convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 324 IPC; ● The contradictions that were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and the deficiencies that were pointed out in the investigation cannot completely erase/discredit the case of the prosecution and there is absolutely no ground to interfere 13/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 with the judgment passed by the trial Court.The prosecution has relied upon three incidents in order to substantiate the motive behind the incident.The judgment that was finally delivered in this case was marked as Ex.D-1 on the side of the defence.P.W.-19 and P.W.-21 14/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 have spoken about this case.The third incident was the one, which took place one day prior to the present incident, wherein, Anandhi, the sister of A-1, had given a complaint to the Palam Police Station against the son of the deceased (P.W.-23) on the ground that he along with others teased her near the Bus Stand.This complaint was enquired and it was closed as settled between the parties.P.W.-17 and P.W.-22 have spoken about this complaint.It is clear from the above that there was a deep enmity between the parties and the same has been substantially proved by the prosecution.Therefore, the motive attributed by the prosecution can be held to be proved in this case.The prosecution has examined P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 as eyewitnesses in this case.He has specifically stated in his evidence that he was informed about the attack made on the deceased by others and 15/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 thereafter he saw the deceased in the scene of crime.He had helped the deceased to be admitted in the hospital and P.W.-1 has also admitted the signature found in the complaint.This witness was treated as hostile, since he did not support the case of the prosecution as an eyewitness.The evidence of this witness can be taken for the purpose of the complaint given after the incident and the deceased being taken to the hospital.P.W.-5, who was examined by the prosecution as eyewitness, did not support the case of the prosecution and he has stated that he was not in the station at the time of the incident.P.W.-6, even though was treated as a hostile witness, has stated about the attack made by the appellant against the deceased with aruval.He, however, makes a statement to the effect that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer and he went to his native place to take treatment for Asthma.16/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W.-4 in this case.P.W.-4 has stated in his evidence that he had gone to attend the funeral of Anthonyammal at Kongathanparai Village on 12.02.2009 and at about 4.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m., the appellant had attacked the deceased with aruval and the deceased fell down and thereafter, he was again attacked in his neck, mouth and chest.He took the deceased in the Autorickshaw to the hospital.A close reading of the evidence of P.W.-4 shows that there was a prior enmity between P.W.-4 and the appellant and he goes to the extent of saying that there was a prior complaint given against him and others for having attacked the father of A-1 and that it was a false case and therefore, they were not in talking terms.It must be seen as to whether the evidence of P.W.-4 can be acted upon for the purpose of sustaining the conviction and sentence against the appellant.This witness has not stated anything about the presence of A-2 to A-4 in the scene of occurrence.Even though this witness speaks about the deceased being taken to the hospital in an Auto, the wound certificate (Ex.P-31) and the evidence of P.W.-28 17/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 shows that it was one Siva, who had brought the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital.P.W.-4 does not speak about Siva (son of P.W.-3) anywhere in his evidence.The Auto, in which, the deceased and the injured persons were taken has not been brought as a material object and the Auto Driver has not been examined as a witness.Similarly, Siva has also not been examined as a witness.These clothes have not been recovered and sent for chemical examination.Atleast that could have ensured the presence of P.W.-4 in the scene of ocurrence.In view of all the above material contradictions and missing links that are found in this case, the presence of P.W-4 in the scene of occurrence becomes highly doubtful.The fact that P.W.-4 does not state anything about the presence of A-2 to A-4 makes his evidence even more doubtful.18/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017P.W.-28, who was the Doctor, who had examined the deceased, had given the wound certificate (Ex.P-31).The injuries as found in the Wound Certificate is extracted hereunder:“1.Laceration over right lower jaw 15 x 4 x 1 cm.2.Laceration over right side of neck.3.Laceration over posterior aspect of right hand on 7 x 4 cm.4.Laceration over left arm 5 x 5 x 3 cm.5.Laceration right chin.6.Laceration on right side of back.7.Laceration on posterior aspect of right shoulder 5 x 2 x 1 cm.”The postmortem was conducted by P.W.-28 and the injuries found in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.-18) is extracted hereunder:“The following antemortem injuries were noted:1.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 16 x 2 x 5 cm over right cheek, it extens from angle of mouth to right ear, it cuts the underlying muscles and right side of mandible.It cuts the underlying muscles.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 20173.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 1 x 5 cm over right side of upper part of neck.It cuts the underlying arteries, veins and nerves.4.A vertical gapping stab injury of size 4 x 1 x 3 cm over left side of neck, it pierces the underlying muscles, arteries, veins and nerves.Its margins are sharp and edges clean cut.5.An oblique curved gapping heavy cutting injury of size 17 x 4 x 2 cm over top of right shoulduts the underlying muscles.It cuts the underlying muscles.It cuts the underlying muscles and head of right humerous bone, its having a tailing of 7 cm in right upper arm.8.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 17 x 2 x 2 cm over back of right upper arm, it cuts the underlying muscles.9.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 16 x 2 x 2 cm lies 1 cm behind injury No.8, it cuts the underlying muscles.10.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 8 x 2 cm x cavity deep over right side of back, it lies 8 cm 20/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.On dissection it cuts the underlying scapula, right ribs 5 & 6 with surrounding contusion and enters into right pleural cacity and makes a heavy cutting injury of size 6 x 1 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of right lung.11.A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size (2 x 2 x 2 cm over back of right upper arm, it cuts the underlying muscles.12.An oblique gapping stab injury of size 4 x 2 x 4 cm over medial aspect of lower part of right upper arm.Its edges are sharp and margins clean cut.13.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 2 cm x bone deep over outer aspect of middle of left forearm.It cuts the underlying forearm bones with surrounding contusion.14.An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 5 x 1 x 1 cm over left 1st web space.It cuts the underlying tendons.15.A linear incised injury of length 5 cm near right axilla.16.A linear incised injury of length 21 cm seen over right side of chest.Opinion as to the cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries, injury Nos.3,4 & 10 are 21/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 fatal in nature.”As against seven injuries found in the Wound Certificate, 16 injuries are found in the postmortem certificate.The postmortem Doctor has opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries and injury numbers 3, 4 and 10 are vital in nature.Therefore, taking into consideration the background facts of this case and the questionable evidence of the so called eyewitness P.W.-4, discrepancies pointed out in the injuries found in the body of the deceased assume greater significance.The deceased was admitted in the hospital at about 6.50 p.m., and he died at about 8.15 p.m. The deceased was alive for nearly 2½ hours after the incident.The Wound Certificate and the evidence of P.W.-28 reveals the fact that the deceased was conscious.There is no indication in the Wound Certificate regarding the seriousness of the injury sustained by the deceased.That apart, the entire Wound 22/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 Certificate talks about 7 laceration injuries, whereas, the postmortem certificate talks about gapping cut injuries.P.W.-28, in her evidence, states that the injuries have not been indicated as cut injury or incised wound.If the deceased was conscious and if the Doctor had felt that the injury was serious, the statement of the deceased could have been recorded, since he was conscious.Even after the death of the deceased, this statement could have been used as a Dying Declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. This would have greatly helped the prosecution to come out with the true version about the entire incident.For reasons best known, unfortunately, this procedure has not been adopted in this case.P.W.-4, in his evidence, has specifically stated that there were 200 to 300 persons, who attended the funeral of Anthonyammal.Not a single independant witness has been examined by the prosecution in this case.If such a grave incident had taken place in the presence of such a large crowd, it is very unnatural that the group would not have reacted to the situation.This also throws a lot of doubt on the genesis of the case projected by the prosecution.23/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017The non examination of Siva (son of P.W.-3), who had admitted the deceased and the injured in the hospital, continues to be a mystery.The non-examination makes this Court to take an adverse inference on the case of the prosecution, since it must be taken to have been intentionally done to conceal the genesis of the case.If this witness had been examined, he would have spoken about the incident, the persons involved in the incident, the witnesses, who were available in the scene of crime and also the manner, in which, the deceased and the injured were taken to the hospital.The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who are the injured witnesses, is cogent and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence.The evidence of these two witnesses cannot help the prosecution in any way in order to sustain the conviction against the appellant for the offence of murder.At the best, the evidence of these two witnesses can help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence only insofar as the overt-acts attributed against the appellant 24/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The benefit of doubt that was extended to A-2 to A-4 by the trial Court by not convicting them for the charge under Section 302 read with 114 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC should have been extended to the appellant also.If the presence of A-2 to A-4 in the scene of crime is doubted, then, the very basis of the case of the prosecution for the offence of murder gets completely shattered.In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.Therefore, the appellant has to be necessarily acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC.Insofar as the offence under Sections 324 (2 counts), and 452 IPC, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubts and the conviction and sentence, inosfar as these offences are concerned, is hereby sustained.The judgment of the trial Court made 25/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 in S.C.No.76/2013 dated 09.11.2016 is accordingly, modified.The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.1.The II Additional District & Sessions Judge (PCR) Tirunelveli.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Cheranmahadevi Sub Division, Munneerpallam Police Station Tirunelveli District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.26/27http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J RR Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.503 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6997 of 2019 17.10.2019
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,809,534 |
1 29.03.2016 kc.3 C.R.R.2192 of 2000 Smt.Tandrani Biswas (Mukherjee) Vs.State of West Bengal Mrs. Debjani Sahu ...for the State None appears on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner even on the second call after the recess.It is found that the allegation in the FIR is that the revisionist/petitioner, a teacher of Wendy's School, Ekbalpore together with other colleagues assaulted the ten years old daughter of the de facto complainant and due to such assault she had to be admitted to a Nursing Home where she was treated.It further appears that after carrying out the investigation police filed charge-sheet under Sections.324/114 of the Indian Penal Code against the three teachers of the school.There is nothing on record to suggest as to how the delay occurred in conducting the trial of the case.However, there does not appear so much delay in submission of the charge-sheet and the investigation was completed within the time frame as stipulated under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It further appears from the record that as back as on 30.08.2000 an order was passed directing stay of further proceedings until further order and although under order dated 22.01.2002 the revisional application was dismissed for default but on 11.02.2003 an order was made recalling the said order and the case was restored to file.After going through the record and the copy of the FIR it can be said that the FIR prima facie, discloses elements of commission of a cognizable case and there is no reason to quash the proceedings which after submission of charge-sheet must go to its logical end.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as early as possible.(Malay Marut Banerjee,J.)
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,988,129 |
It is stated by Sudharani in the FIR that her daughter Bulbuli was married in Magh, 1388 B.S. to Sambhu Goala, the appellant herein who was a hawker in trains and who constructed a house on the railway khas land and started living there with his wife.It is also the case in the FIR that Sambhu started torturing Bulbuli after one year of the marriage and suddenly in Chaitra, 1393 B.S. the complainant realised that her daughter and son-in-law Sambhu were missing from their house and they thought that perhaps they had gone somewhere and were waiting for their return and as they did not return even after one year they became suspicious and in the meantime the complainant's another son-in-law Tapan Talapatra informed her about three months back that he came across Sambhu and Sambhu told him that Bulbuli was staying in the house of his Meso, Misirlal Yadav in Gorakhpur.She is the mother of Bulbuli.He was a member of the Panchayat Samity at the relevant time.He says that after marriage Bulbuli used to reside with her husband.He further says that police from Kotowali P.S. went to the house of Sambhu and on that day he came to learn about the death of Bulbuli and on hearing this he went to the house of Sambhu, and many other persons were present there and that on his arrival there he found that Sambhu was digging earth on the floor of his house to some extent and Sambhu brought out a skeleton of a human being.He, however, cannot say Whose skeleton it was.He says that police prepared a report on the spot and he signed thereon.He also identifies his signature.5. P.W.3 Jitendra Das is the sister's husband of Bulbuli and is a resident of Baishguri, New Cooch Behar under Kotowali P.S. His house, he says, is at: a distance of 1 /1 1/2km.from the house of Sambhu.He says that after marriage Bulbuli met him on three occasions and at that time she reported that Sambhu demanded money from her which was beyond the capacity of her father to pay and for such inability of her father Sambhu and his mother had been assaulting and illtreating her.He says that 4/5 years after marriage of Bulbuli, Sambhu and other residents of that house disappeared and two months thereafter he met Sambhu in front of Cooch Behar Sadar Hospital and asked about the whereabouts of Bulbuli and Sambhu then gave them an address of Bihar in the district of Chhapra and stated that Bulbuli was there.He says that then he himself, his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, Parsuram went to that place in the district of Chappra but they did not find Bulbuli there.He also says that at the time of Panchayat Election he met Sambhu's mother in the house of Sambhu's Mesho Moshai when Sambhu's mother expressed her ignorance regarding the whereabouts of Bulbuli.He further says that then he lodged a missing diary about Bulbuli at the Kotowali P.S. His evidence is that subsequently they caught Sambhu at the back side of New Alipurduar Railway Station in a shop and Sambhu tried to flee away but they took Sambhu to Alipurduar P.S. and then on the instruction of Alipurduar P.S. they informed the matter to Kotowali P.S., Cooch Behar and police of Kotowali P.S. went to Alipurduar P.S. and brought Sambhu to Cooch Behar.His evidence shows that actually Putul, his Bhira-Bhai caught Sambhu at New Alipurduar Railway Station and many people gathered there.His further evidence is that from Kotowali P.S. police took him and Sambhu along with 4/5 motor vehicles to the house of Sambhu at Sibbari Colony.He further says that Sambhu was interrogated by the police and he stated to the police that he had embedded Bulbuli below the earth under the cot kept in his room after killing her and Sambhu pointed out that place to police in presence of all of them and then being asked by police Sambhu dug out that place with the help of a spade and after digging upto about 3ft.a bad smell came out and then the Government sweeper carefully dug out the remaining portion of the earth and brought out a skeleton with a red pala, a woollen lady's chadar and a leather chappal.He further says that hands and legs of the dead-body were folded.He also says that the description of the skeleton and the dress were given by Sambhu beforehand to the police and as per description given by Sambhu to the police about his wife's dress and position, police made a G.D. entry.He is a resident of Sibbari Colony at New Cooch Behar.He is a gangman of N.F. Railway.His house, he says, is at a distance of 4/5 bighas from the house of Sambhu Goala where Sambhu used to reside with his mother and wife Bulbuli.P.W. 12 D.K. Maulick is an Inspector of Police.On 21-3-88 he was attached to Kotowali P.S. as S.I. of Police and Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. He recorded the verbal complaint of P.W. 1 on that day and started P.S. Case No. 14(3)/88 under Section 364/302/201/498-A, IPC.He says that he read over the statement to the maker of the FIR who admitted the same as correctly written and put her signature on the same.He took up the investigation of the case.He says that he arrested the accused Sambhu Goala from Alipurduar P.S. and took him to Kotowali P.S. and interrogated him about the occurrence.He says that Sambhu Goala stated that he along with two associates about 7/8, months back, inside his house at Sibbari Colony, killed his wife Bulbuli by cutting her throat with khur (razor) and thereafter he buried her body in the floor of the said hut and absconded.He further says that Sambhu stated that he would be able to lead them to the spot and show them her dead-body.How far such statements allegedly made by the accused-Sambhu to the Police Officer is admissible in evidence will, however, be discussed by us later.He further says that as the accused made statement towards recovery of dead-body of Bulbuli and the body was required to be disinterred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cooch-Behar, he sent requisition to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 176, Cr.P.C. through S.I.N.C. Pal and S.I.L.K. Rana.His evidence shows that he arranged hazaks and other things and also arranged for a photographer.He says that being led by the Sambhu Goala, he (P.W. 12), D.N. Soren, Executive Magistrate, Cooch Behar Sadar, T.T. Lepcha, D.S.P. Crime, S.I.L.K. Rana, S.I.M.C. Pal, A.S.I., K. Lama, A.S.I.M. Khan, D.I.C. Jagdish Ghosh and force went to a thatched hut at Sibbari Colony in village Baisguri and the accused Sambhu stated to them to have buried his wife Bulbuli inside that hut about 7/8 months back.He further says that Sambhu Goala entered the hut in presence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, police and witnesses and identified the spot on the floor of the hut where he concealed the dead-body of his wife.He further says that D. Soren ordered the body to be disinterred and the portion of the floor of the hut was dug out by the accused Sambhu Goala.He also says that on disinterment the deadbody of a highly decomposed and mutilated human body with long hair and wearing saree was found and only bones remained and skull was visible.He also speaks about the presence of saree, chadar, a pair of chappal and a piece of broken red churi there.JUDGMENT Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.The learned Sessions Judge has by his impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant-accused Sambhu Goala alias Yadav under Section 302, I.P.C. and has sentenced him to death.He has also convicted the accused under Section 201, I.P.C. and has sentenced him to R.I. for seven years for such conviction.It may be mentioned here that the present appellant Sambhu and his mother Sita Goala were tried in the same trial.While the accused Sambhu was charged under Section 498-A, 302/34 and 201/34, I.P.C. his mother, the co-accused was charged under Section 498-A, I.P.C. only.The learned Trial Judge, however, acquitted both the accused persons in respect of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A, I.P.C. But as stated above the accused Sambhu was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 and Section 201, I.P. C. The trial Court has made the death reference for confirmation of death sentence.The accused Sambhu also has preferred the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court.2, The appellant-Sambhu married one Bulbuli alias Anita who was the daughter of the de facto complainant Smt. Sudharani, the informant who lodged the FIR on 21-3-88 at 5 p.m. at Kotowali P.S., Cooch Behar.It is further stated in the FIR that as Misirlal used to work at New Bangaigaon, the complainant got in touch with Misirlal and also went to Misirlal's house at Gorakhpur but Bulbuli could not be traced out.It is also stated in the FIR that 'today', that is 21-3-88; the complainant's son-in-law went to Sitalabari Colony at Alipurduar and saw Sambhu, but no trace of Bulbuli was obtained .It is the prosecution case that Sambhu was caught there and taken to Alipurduar P.S. and subsequently police from Kotowali P.S., Cooch Behar went to Alipurduar P.S. and brought the accused Sambhu who confessed that he murdered his wife Bulbuli and buried her under the floor of the hut where he used to live at Cooch Behar, and (as) guided by Sambhu the police party and others went to that hut and on the showing of Sambhu earth of the floor of the hut was dug and a dead body, virtually consisting of only bones and hair without flesh was recovered by such digging of earth alongwith certain other articles including some wearing articles of Bulbuli.On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet and accordingly, as we have noted, charge was framed against the accused and trial was held and concluded as stated above.We now proceed to discuss the evidence of witnesses.P.W. 1, Sudharani Dutta is the complainant who lodged the FIR.In her evidence in 1997 she says that her daughter Bulbuli died 10 years back and she was given in marriage to Sambhu Goala about 15 years back.She further says that after marriage Sambhu and her daughter Bulbuli used to live at New Cooch Behar and in the family of Sambhu there used to live his mother, Bulbuli and another man named Goutam who was not related to Sambhu.She says that one year after marriage of Bulbuli with Sambhu she found none in their house.It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this statement is inconsistent with the FIR version that the complainant realised in Chaitra, 1393, B.S. that Bulbuli and Sambhu were missing from their house.It, however, appears to us that the statement of Sudharani in her evidence that since after one year of the marrigae none was found in their house is the result of some confusion about the lapse of time and this in our opinion has no material bearing on the merit of the prosecution case which; as we will find, is supported by other reliable evidence.P.W. 1 says that they made search at different places for their missing daughter but to no effect and that her second son-in-law Tapan Talapatra who used to reside at Cooch Behar Town met Sambhu and wanted to know about Bulbuli and Sambhu promised to take him to Bulbuli but subsequently Sambhu escaped and did not meet Tapan again and then her another son-in-law Putul Burman got Sambhu at New Alipurduar and Sambhu was brought to Alipurduar P.S. where Sambhu confessed in presence of P.W. 1, her brother Sunil Das, Parasuram Jha, Putul Burman that he had killed Bulbuli and thereafter he buried her under the earth in his bed room at New Cooch Behar.She further says that then police from Cooch Behar town went to Alipurduar and brought Sambhu Goala to his house at New Cooch Behar where he used to reside and Shambhu pointed out a place inside his room and stated that he had buried the dead body of Bulbuli below the earth there.From her evidence it appears that a cot was placed at that spot and there was bed upon the cot.She says that police dug out the place and brought out the dead body of Bulbuli from below the earth.She further says that out of profound grief she left the place as she would be unable to bear the shock.She, however, says that she did not see the dead body of Bulbuli.She says that she reported the occurrence to Kotowali P.S. and Darogabak wrote down her verbal information and read over the same to her and thereafter being satisfied she signed the same.In her cross-examination she says that Sambhu used to live in the house which was at a distance of half bigha from the house of P.W. 1 intervened by four other houses and the distance being only about 15/16 cubits.She further says that Sambhu's house was in front of her house and there were houses around the house of Sambhu.She says that when her daughter was lost and not found on search she reported the matter to Kotowali police and G.D. entry was made.It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no such G.D. entry has been produced in the case.In her cross-examination P.W. 1 says that one month after lodging the FIR they came to know that Bulbuli had been murdered and her dead-body had been buried under the earth.In our opinion, in view of the overwhelming and reliable evidence about the date of recovery of the skeleton by digging earth, it is evident from the statement of P.W. 1 that they came to know that Bulbuli had been murdered one month after lodging the FIR is clearly the result of some confusion in the matter.In all probability what she meant to say in that context was that it was one month after lodging of the G.D. entry that they came to know about the fact that Bulbuli was murdered and her body was buried.It is suggested on behalf of the defence to P.W. 1 in her cross-examination that there was no dwelling house of Sambhu at Cooch Behar on the railway land and that the house in question belonged to Sambhu's mother.P.W. 1, however, denies that suggestion and says that Sambhu himself constructed that house.In our opinion the question whether the house belonged to Sambhu or Sambhu's mother is not a fact of vital consequence in the matter.The fact remains that there was a hut in which Sambhu used to stay there.4. P.W.2 Nagendra Burman was declared hostile by the prosecution.He is a resident of village Baishguri, New Cooch Behar, P.S. Kotowali.He says that the house of P.W. 1 Subharani is at a distance of 1km.from his house.He speaks about the marriage of Bulbuli with Sambhu.He says that the house of Sambhu was at New Cooch Behar Cooli Patty.Although this witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, he however, testifies to the fact of digging of earth by Sambhu in the house of Sambhu and consequential recovery of a skeleton from beneath the earth of the floor of the house of Sambhu.He says that the atricles and objects which were found out after digging the earth were seized by police and police prepared a seizure list which was signed by him.He also says that his mother-in-law Subharani Dutta lodged FIR with the police in his presence and police took it down and thereafter his mother-in-law and he himself signed the FIR.In his cross-examination he says that after about 5 months from the date of missing they lodged a G.D. entry at Kotowali P.S. about Bulbuli.He also says in his cross-examination that he did not read the contents of the seizure list himself and next morning he went to Kotowali P.S. and signed the seizure list as instructed by the police.It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of this witness shows that the seizure list was not prepared on that day at the spot and that it was prepared subsequently on the next morning at the P.S. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the FIR itself was also not lodged at the time when it purports to have been lodged.He says that along with the dead-body there were leather chappal, chocolate colour woollen wrapper, saree, red pala and hairs of Bulbuli.He also identifies the recovered materials and says that these were used by Bulbuli and he has seen her to use those articles both in her house and when she used to visit the houses of others.It has been suggested to him in the cross-examination that they have procured those articles from the street and thereafter handed over same to the police in order to falsely implicate Sambhu which, however, he denies.6. P.W.4 Parsuram Jha is a railway employee at New Cooch Behar.He says that formerly he and Sambhu used to reside at Sibbari Colony.He says that Sambhu Goala and Bulbuli were married about 18/20years back (obviously an inaccurate guess) and they lived together for 2/4 years after their marriage at Sibbari Colony and during that period Sambhu and his mother Sita Goala used to ill-treat and assault Bulbuli.He also speaks about the recovery of the skeleton after "digging earth.According to his evidence the S.D.O., Cooch Behar and Kotowali Police went there and Sambhu pointed out the place where he had buried his wife after killing her and thereafter Sambhu dug out the earth with the help of a spade in presence of him (P.W.4) and many others and a dead-body was brought out, but at that time there was no flesh on the skeleton and only the hairs were there and the skeleton was covered with a woollen wrapper and there were churis on the hands and hawai leather chappal on legs.He further says that hands and legs were in folded condition and a razor-like weapon was also found there.He further says that Sambhu identified the skeleton as that of Bulbuli and Sambhu stated that he had killed his wife and had buried her there.He signed the inquest report prepared by the police.In his cross-examination he says that the Ghar under which the dead-body was buried belonged to Sambhu and his mother Sita Goala and it was a Jhupri.He further says that one Bao was the tenant of the said Jhupri at the time of occurrence and he was a tenant there for 1/1 1/2 month only.He is a group D employee of M.J.N. Hospital, Cooch Behar Sadar.Bulbuli was his sister-in-law.He says that Bulbuli was given in marriage with Sambhu Goala about 8 years back.He says that Sambhu used to reside in Sibbari Colony which was situated at railway khas land at New Cooch Behar Railway Station and after marriage Bulbuli used to reside with her husband in her husband's house which was constructed by Sambhu on the Khas Land.He further says that in the family besides Sambhu and Bulbuli there used to live Sambhu's mother Sita Goala and another boy of the same age as of Sambhu whose name was Goutam and who was not related to Sambhu.He says that he learnt about torture on Bulbuli by the accused persons from his mother-in-law.He says that about five years after the marriage they found that the ghar of Sambhu Goala was under lock and key and Sambhu, his mother and Bulbuli all were absent from that locality.His evidence is that subsequently about three months thereafter he met Sambhu at M.J.N. Hospital and Sambhu informed him that for some inconvenience he and his family members had moved to Bihar and also gave an address which was Mistrial's Khamar Bari.He further says that Sambhu's father resides at Alipurduar Junction.He also speaks about lodging of information by his mother-in-law at Kotowali P.S., Cooch Behar.This must be a reference to the G.D. stated to have been lodged at the P.S. regarding the missing of Bulbuli, although the G.D. has not been produced in evidence.He says that sometime thereafter his elder Bhaira Jiten Das (P.W. 3), his Mama-Swasur, his mother-in-law and one Jha who deposed in the case caught Sambhu Goala at New Alipurduar Station and many people gathered there and then Sambhu Goala was handed over to Alipurduar P.S. and then on the instruction of police of Alipurduar his mother-in-law etc. came to Kotowali P.S. and informed them and then Kotowali police went to Alipurduar P.S. and brought back Sambhu therefrom.He says that on the next day he came to know from his mother-in-law that the dead-body of Bulbuli was dug out from the floor of the ghar of Sambhu.In his cross-examination he says that the village people know that the said ghar belongs to Sambhu but he has no documentary evidence regarding the ownership of that ghar.He says that Sambhu was a railway hawker and he used to sell tea in trains.He cannot say when the hawker friends used to visit Sambhu's house and he also does not know if Sambhu had any hawker friend.It has been suggested to him in his cross-examination on behalf of the defence that Bulbuli had fled away with the hawker friends of Sambhu which, however, he denies.He does not know whether any Babu Chowdhury was a tenant in that house for a pretty long time.He further says that he never visited the house of Sambhu Goala so long as Bulbuli had been living there.P.W. 6 Maya Burman is an elder sister of Bulbuli.She speaks about the marriage of Bulbuli with Sambhu and says that after marriage Bulbuli used to reside at Sibbari Colony, New Cooch Behar with Sambhu and in that family Sambhu's mother Sita Goala also used to live.Her evidence is that for some time after the marriage the couple lived peacefully but thereafter Sita Goala and Sambhu Goala started assaulting Bulbuli and she learnt this from the neighbours when she came to her father's house.It may be mentioned here that P.W. 6 is a married sister of Bulbuli.She also speaks about catching of Sambhu at Alipurduar by Jiten Das and her mother.But that must be a hearsay evidence as she was possibly not present there at that time.She says about coming of police with Sambhu in his ghar (at Sibbari).She says that Sambhu pointed out to the police that he had buried his wife Bulbuli under that ghar and on being pointed out by Sambhu that place was dug out and the dead-body of Bulbuli was recovered from below the earth.She says that at that time she saw that the hands and legs of Bulbuli were in folded condition and her body was covered with a wrapper and there was leather sandals on legs and also red coloured pala on the hands of Bulbuli when the body was dug out.She identifies the chadar, saree, red-pala and leather sandals as belonging to her sister Bulbuli and says that she has seen Bulbuli to use those articles.In her cross-examination she says that she never visited the house of Sambhu and she does not know what happened in the house of Sambhu after Bulbuli's marriage with him.She, however, does not say that Bulbuli did not use to come to her father's house when she (P.W.6) used to go there.She cannot say on which day Bulbuli wore what saree and what chappal.She says that the earth of Sambhu's house was dug out at about 12-30 o'clock in the night.It is suggested on behalf of the defence to her that the articles, namely, pala, saree, chadar, chappal and hairs were not of Bulbuli which, however, she denies.It is also suggested to her on behalf of the defence that Bulbuli had fled away with her lover Sofi Akbar which also she denies.She also denies that one Babu Chowdhury resides in that ghar.P.W. 7 Babu Chowdhury was declared hostile by the prosecution.Hostile though, his evidence, however, is that about 18/ 12years back (10/12 years!) one day he found that many persons were proceeding towards Sibbari Colony and on seeing that he also followed them and he went to a house which the people stated to have belonged to Sambhu and he found Sambhu and one sweeper digging earth in Sambhu's house, and some bones were brought out from inside the earth.He says that after seeing the bones he left the place and he had not seen anything more.In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence he says that he was not a tenant in the said house at the said time.He also denies the defence suggestion that he was a resident in the house of Sambhu Goala for a pretty long time and that he is the real perpetrator of the crime and he was deposing otherwise to cover up his own crime.P.W. 8 Bipul Das was also declared hostile by the prosecution.He also speaks about digging of earth of the ghar in his presence by Sambhu and recovery of skeleton as a result of such digging.He also says that as many people were present there, he could not observe the skeleton carefully.He further says that seeing the recovery of the skeleton he left the place.He says that police brought Sambhu there.It has been suggested to him in his cross-examination on behalf of the defence that he and Sambhu used to reside at that place and it was not his residence which, however, he denies.He further denies the defence suggestion that one Babu Chowdhury used to reside there.Group Commandant of Home Guard.He says that on 5-3-88 he was attached to Kotowali P.S. in the same capacity and on that day he accompanied the officer-in-charge of Kotowali P.S. to village Baisguri and on that day by digging earth they brought out the bones of the victim from her house.He says that he brought those bones to M.J.N. Hospital accompanied by a challan handed over to him by the officer-in-charge of the Kotowali P.S. and the bones were handed over to the hospital morgue for post-mortem examination.In his cross-examination he says that the bones were packed in a gunny bag and the same was carried by a sweeper.It is needless to mention, as would be evident, that this witness mainly confined his testimony to the carrying of the recovered skeleton to the hospital morgue and that is why he did not make elaborate statements regarding the other aspects of the incident over which there are other evidence in abundance.P.W.10 Dr. S.C. Pandit is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the bones.From his evidence it appears that the bones were brought and identified by the Dy.Commandant, Home Guard, Jagadish Ghosh (P.W.9) and the doctor held post-mortem examination on 22-3-88 at 13-10 hours.He says that he found human bones and most of the short bones were found destroyed and only the long bones along with skull bones were preserved for chemical analysis.He also says that the wearing apparel and bunch of long hairs were preserved and handed over to the escorting personnel.Definite opinion as to cause of death, age, sex, etc. was kept reserved pending chemical analysis of the bones preserved.He has also given a description of the bones preserved by him.He, however, specifically says that all the bones were of human being.In his cross-examination he says that he noted in the post-mortem report that death took place between six and eight months.Indeed there is no evidence as to exactly when the death of the victim took place.P.W. 11 Bhola Paswan was also declared hostile by the prosecution.He says that in course of removal of the dead-body the bones were broken and the remaining bones were found to be broken.According to his evidence he prepared the inquest report to the dictation of D.N. Soren, Executive Magistrate and that was signed by D.N. Soren.We also get it from him that apart from the inquest report prepared by the Executive Magistrate, he (P.W. 12) also prepared another inquest report of the deceased there at that time.His evidence shows that photograph of the skeleton was taken and the articles found were all seized and he sent the disinterred skeleton to M.J.N. Hospital for post-mortem examination through Jagadish Ghosh, Dy.Group Commandant, Home Guard.He says that on 21-3-88 Sambhu Goala made statement to him at Kotowali P.S. which led to recovery of the dead-body of his wife Bulbuli and he recorded that fact in his case diary.He also says that the FIR was recorded by him at 5 p.m. on that day and he left for Alipurduar P.S. after recording the FIR.He further says that the informant did not state to him that Sambhu Goala was at Alipurduar P.S. He however says that after recording the FIR he had telephonic conversation with Alipurduar P.S. when he came to know that S.I.S.N. Subba had already arrested Sambhu Goala and kept him at Alipurduar P.S. He, however, did not record the statement of S.I.S.N. Subba under Section 161, Cr.P.C. He says that the room which was dug out was then occupied by one Babu Chowdhury as recorded in the inquest report.It may be noted here that this Babu Chowdhury was examined as P.W. 7 but he was declared hostile.P.W. 13 M.K. Chettri, P.W. 14 Pijush Kanti Roy, P.W. 15 Biman Kr.Chanda and P.W. 16 Lalit Kr.Rana are all police officers.P.W. 16 Lalit Kr.He says that besides other police personnel, the S.D.O. Sadar also accompanied the police party and the accused Sambhu Goala was also with them.According to that report the skull and the bones belonged to a female human being and they belonged to the same person aged about 17/18 years, but no definite opinion could be given as to the cause of death from the available body parts.It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Magistrate D.N. Soren has neither been examined in this case or nor was he examined under Section 161, IPC.We have elaborately discussed the evidence on record, both oral and documentary.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 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.
|
1,988,174 |
The challenge in this revision is against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. VII, Coimbatore made in Crl.M.P. No. 571 of 1995 in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 dated 2-5-1995, for its want of legality and propriety.The petitioners herein numbering 5 along with others in all about 12 are facing the charges of bigamy punishable under Section 494 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the first petitioner married the second respondent, the husband of Dr. Premavathi, the first respondent herein, who was already married to the said person.It has been alleged further that the first respondent was a Doctor and the second respondent was an Engineer by profession and that in view of certain bickerings that erupted in connection with the demand of dowry their marital life became strained but however, during the said so journ, a female child was born to them and at the last, it was stated that the said first wife Dr. Premavathi with her minor child was alleged to have been driven away from the custody of her husband from Erode and consequently, they took asylum and residence at Podanur within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore.Claiming maintenance for the minor child, the mother as guardian appears to have filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband before the Court below claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs. 500/- per month, which is pending.In the petition aforementioned itself, it is alleged that for the offence of bigamy, against her husband appropriate proceedings was being contemplated for the offence under S. 494, I.P.C. Subsequently, a private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and others numbering 12 in all was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. VII, Coimbatore for the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 read with 109, I.P.C. and that was taken to the file in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 for the purpose of trial.On entering appearance by the accused, a petition under Section 182(2), Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein stating that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint for the reasoning that the complainant Dr. Premavathi since the date of her marriage with her husband was all along living at Erode and last resided at Erode within the jurisdiction of the Court at Erode and had left Erode long before the alleged offence of bigamy was committed.The said petition was resisted on the same provision of law by and on behalf of the complainant/first respondent herein through the Bar.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,820,921 |
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.(Delivered by Hon.The victim will be paid 50% of all the amount of fine imposed on the accused as compensation.The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.11.2007, the accused who is father of the prosecutrix forcefully assaulted her sexually and committed rape upon her at about 8/9 P.M. and again on 12.11.2007 at about 6.00 A.M. in the morning.As per the prosecution case, on the fateful date the prosecutrix was sleeping with her mother Rambeti.When the mother of the prosecutrix raised the objection then accused pushed her and tied her hands and legs.Subsequently he has taken the prosecutrix towards baramada and he committed rape upon her.Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)Heard Sri Ravesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.B.Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.02 This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Etawah in S.T. No.430 of 2007, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo R.I. for one year.On 12.11.2007 at 10.30 A.M., F.I.R. of this incident was promptly lodged, at police station Chakar Nagar, Etawa.Medical examination was conducted on 12.11.2007, wherein it was found that hymen was torn although no external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix.No definite opinion about rape was given by the Doctor, who had conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix.After completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 376 I.P.C. against the appellant.As he denied the charge, refuted the prosecution story and pleaded innocence, he was put to trial.The trial court after concluding the proceedings vide judgement and order dated 17.12.2008, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-.Aggrieved by the said judgement and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court on the ground that he was falsely implicated due to enmity as his wife and daughter wanted the entire property to be transferred in their name.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case as he had not good relation with his wife Rambeti.At the instance of Rambbeti the prosecutrix has falsely implicated her father for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant has not given share of the property to her and her children, therefore, she has given warning to the appellant that she will implicate him in a crime which will destroy his whole life.On that pretext appellant was falsely implicated in the case.Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per defence witness the prosecutrix and her mother were not present at the time of incident at the place of occurrence as they have already left the house and they were residing at the place of maternal father.On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the prosecutrix was raped by his own father.There was no reason for false implication of his own father in such heinous crime.The prosecutrix stated in her deposition that her father committed rape upon her and the same was supported by P.W.2 Rambeti.The case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition.22. P.W.1 the prosecutrix remained on her statement that her father committed rape upon her.He prepared the site plan and seized underwear and ghaghari of the prosecutrix and same was sent to Forensic Laboratory for test.The prosecutrix has proved site plan which was prepared by the I.O.P.W. 4 Dr. Nirupama Dixit has conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix and found that hymen was torn but she has not given any definite opinion of commission of rape on the prosecutrix.However, the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. being found to be excessive reduced to Rs.1000/-.Considering the facts that the victim in the case in hand was aged about 15 years on the date of the incident and also of the fact that incident occurred merely ten years ago awarded life imprisonment which is maximum prescribed is not warranted and also in view of the mandate under Section 376 (2) (f) (i) I.P.C., we feel that ends of justice would be met by imposing R.I. by ten years.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant informed to this Court that the appellant had already served almost 10 years.Order Date :- 6th November, 2017 Asha (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla,J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,823 |
The case of the prosecution is that deceased Venugopal, a person from Kerala was working as a Publicity Officer with Life Insurance Corporation of India at Bombay.He was residing with his wife Indira who was serving as an Executive in Otis Elevators India Limited.They had a daughter by name Sangita aged 17 years and son by name Harjit aged 13/14 years.They were staying at Goregaon.This family was in the habit of going to Ayyappa Temple.On 13.2.1988, as usual, they left their house for going to the temple by tar road.They were at the temple for some time and then they started returning back.While they were proceeding towards Sargam Building, on way to their house they came near the structure of tin known as Bengali Kallon.At that time, Indira saw two persons standing by that structure.Accused No. 1 came ahead and stopped in front of Indira.She was shocked and became alert.Then accused No. 1 put his hand near the neck of Indira to snatch the golden chain.Accused No. 2 is alleged to have assisted accused No. 1 and then Venugopal was pushed towards marshy land and the accused No. 1 took out a knife and gave blow on the right side neck of Venugopal.The three witnesses i.e. Indira, Sangita and Harjit were stunt and then the accused ran away.Venugopal fell down with a blood injury and Indira ran towards the temple for assistance, she came back with some persons.Then local doctor Desai was called but he found that the condition of Venugopal was serious.He advised that Venugopal be taken to the hospital.Accordingly a car was called and Venugopal was removed in that car to the hospital of Dr. Panvalkar.But, unfortunately, doctor declared him to be dead before any treatment could be given.It appears that because it was a medico-legal case, doctor did not do anything nor tried to ascertain the cause of death and he advised that body of Venugopal be taken to the spot from where he was brought and police be called.In the meantime, a Head Constable Pande on patrolling duty happen to come there and Venugopal was taken to Cooper hospital where he was declared dead.One person Thambi was present.He reported the matter to Goregaon Police Station at 10.45 p.m. His report was taken as FIR and offence under Section 307 and 393 of IPC was registered.On the next day panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn.Statement of the son of the deceased was recorded so also the statement of Indira.The names of the accused were there in the police station as persons committing similar type of offences.Therefore, police went in search of them.JUDGMENT D. G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Counsel for the Appellants -accused and learned APP for the State.Anticipating this move of Accused No. 1, Indira tried to resist by one hand and tried to cover the chain by hand.She uttered some words which were heard by her husband Venugopal who was just behind her.There was a scuffle.They were arrested and sent to Metropolitan Magistrate.Test Identification Parade was held.Three witnesses identified accused No. 1 as culprit trying to snatch the chain and giving stab blow to Venugopal and accused No. 2 coming to the help of accused No. 1 and giving kicks and fists blows.After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed.The defence of the accused was of total denial.Evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of three eye witnesses, the medical evidence, recovery evidence and the evidence of identification was accepted by the trial court, and, appellants - accused came to be convicted as stated above, and, hence, this appeal.Mr. Memon tried to contend that admittedly the accused were unknown but police arrested them only because of their previous history and implicated them in this false case.He also contended that the identification parade was faulty and it could not be relied upon, and, if the identification parade is disregarded, then nothing remains there to connect the accused with the crime.Offence of discovery of weapon and clothes at the instance of both the accused was also simultaneously attacked by Mr. Memon.On the other hand, the learned APP contended that this was a full proof case with no doubt about the involvement of both the accused.According to him, Indira had ample opportunity to see accused No. 1 because he obstructed her, tried to snatch the chain and when she opposed, he assaulted her husband and then inflicted blow on the neck with a knife.So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, learned APP tried to contend that he was rightly convicted under Section 34 because he had shared a common intention.He also stated that she identified both the accused and nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony.Apart from the fact that she has absolutely no reason to falsely implicate both these accused.We were taken through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and the judgment of the trial court.The evidence of Indira P. W. 1 is fully corroborated by Sangita P.W. 3 - the daughter of deceased Venugopal and Indira.She has given the same version.She had identified both the accused in court as the persons present there and accused No. 1 tried to snatch the chain and inflicted blow on Venugopal.She also admitted that she had identified both the accused by attributing specific role as per the case of the prosecution.Her cross-examination also has not resulted in discrediting or creating doubt about her testimony.9. Evidence of Indira and Sangita is further corroborated by P.W. 4 Harjeet - son of deceased Venugopal and Indira.He is a boy of 11 years when his evidence was recorded and he has not only corroborated the testimony of mother Indira but also identified both the accused.Regarding this evidence, Mr. Memon tried to contend that there was darkness on the road as there were no street lights and therefore it was impossible for Indira to identify the accusd.We do not find any force in the submission.Similarly, her daughter and son both were just by her side at that time and therefore they had also sufficient opportunity.Nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to show that these three witnsesses were shown the accused before the parade.Then, there is evidence of P.W. 9 Manubhai Patel - panch on the discovery memo.He has stated that on 16.2.1988 he was called in the police station.Accused No. 1 was there, he was saying that he had kept clothes and knife at his house and he will point out.Then memorandum was prepared at Exhibit '2'.Thereafter the accused led police party to his house, accused No. 1 told that it was his house.There was a cupboard in the room and from underneath the cupboard he took out a knife, clothes i.e. a jercy and jean pant.There were blood stains on the jercy.The knife was a folding knife with a wooden handle and the blade had blood stains.The clothes and the knife were wrapped in brown paper, labelled and sealed.There is no effective cross-examination about this discovery at all.Then panchnama of the seizure was prepared and signed by panchas and police officers.Witness also identified the clothes as articles before the court.There is also discovery of clothes at the instance of accused No. 2, proved by P.W. 10 Raja Gatti -a panch witness.It was a shirt and pant with dark stains on the shirt.Then, there is evidence of identification parade by P. W. 13 SEM Kesarinath Chitnis.He stated about holding the parade on 16.2.1988 and has stated that three witnesses identified both the accused separately.No submissions were made regarding this parade and therefore that evidence has to be accepted as it is.Muddemal article including the clothes of the deceased, the things recovered from the spot, clothes of the accused and the weapon were sent to the C.A. Reports of the C.A. are on record.As per Exhibit 38 knife item No. 10 is stained with blood.It is a human blood.Though grouping could not be done.As per Exhibit 39 blood group of accused Mohamad Kasam Samsudhin Shiakh is 'O' and Articles 4 and 5 - the clothes of the accused.Neither there is any defect in the identification parade nor any lacunas in the evidence of three witnesses Indira, Sangita and Harjeet.They have given evidence in proper sequence and manner.Three witnesses have corroborated each other.They identified the accused in the parade as well as in the court.Knife was recovered at the instance of the accuseed.Human blood was found on it.No doubt he was there and he might have assaulted deceased, but it cannot be said that in the act of snatching by accused No. 1 or attempt to snatch gold chain of Indira by accused No. 1 or in the act of causing injury by accused No. 1 to Venugopal, this accused shared a common intention.It may be that he was knowing about the activities of accused No. 1 but there is difference between 'may be' and 'must be'.There is no conclusive evidence to connect the accused No. 2 with the offence of robbery or murder of Venugopal, and, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt.As a result, we pass the following order:Appellant - accused No. 1 to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today.If he fails to surrender, the trial court to take appropriate action against him under Criminal Procedure Code and sent him to jail for undergoing sentence imposed by the trial court.Appellant - accused No. 2 is acquitted of the offences.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
198,823,632 |
( .12.2016)This Revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 397/401 of the 'Code' of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short), against the judgment dated 18.8.2007, passed in Cr.Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa (MP), whereby conviction of applicant under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. For one year, with default clause, awarded to him by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teothar, District Rewa, vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2007 in Criminal Case No.54/2000, was affirmed.In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that a complaint was made by complainant-Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW/1) on 31.12.1999, that deceased Tarun Pratap Singh was hit by a Jeep bearing registration No. MP-17-B/3260 near Rambagh, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver at a very high speed.Deceased was taken to the hospital at Choukhandi, but on way, he 2 succumbed to the injuries.On complaint, a FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered by the police against the accused/applicant and after completing the investigation, police has filed charge sheet against the accused/applicant for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC before the concerned Magistrate.During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the applicant after examining the accused/applicant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence for which he denied.While examining the applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he is innocent.After considering the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, the accused/applicant was found guilty for causing death of deceased Tarun Singh, due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing registration No. MP-17-B/3260 and he was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.1500/- (Fifteen hundred), in default whereof, to further undergo 2 months Simple Imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Act.Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.08.2007, passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa, by which the appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teothar, was dismissed, this revision petition has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 1.3.2007, passed by learned Magistrate, Teothar and judgment dated 18.8.2007 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa, and acquittal of the accused/applicant for the offence complained of.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that prosecution has failed to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of applicant so as to hold him guilty under Section 304-A of IPC.In fact, the deceased 3 was in an intoxicated condition and stumbling on the road.He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and in order to attract the provisions of Section 304-A of IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the applicant drove the offending jeep in rash or negligent manner.The prosecution witnesses inter alia stated that the accused/applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but failed to prove the decree of rashness and negligence by strong evidence.He further submitted that mere carelessness is not sufficient to convict the accused/applicant as the prosecution is required to prove the mens rea the guilty mind.Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is of 31.12.1999, i.e. about 17 years ago and applicant is suffering from persistent mental and physical agony since last about 17 years, therefore, in case this Court also finds guilty, then Court may extend the fine amount awarding jail sentence upto his custody period, which has been spent by him.In this context, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of (Kamla Prasad Vs.State of Rajasthan 2014 Cr.L.J. 2582).Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/State has submitted that the case is based on the version of two eye witnesses, Smt. Anupma (PW/3) and Udaibhan (PW/4), who were travelling in the offending Jeep at the time of incident, have fully supported the prosecution case.The mechanical inspection report, postmortem report, the statements of aforesaid eye witnesses and the witnesses who reached on the site after the accident, proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, learned Sessions Judge Rewa, has rightly dismissed the appeal which need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment or order of sentence.I have considered the rival submissions made by learned 4 counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.In the present case, the important witnesses are Smt. Anupma (PW/3) and Udaibhan (PW/4), who were travelling in the offending Jeep at the time of incident.As per their statements, it is clear that the accident took place in the evening hour i.e. about 6:30 PM.These witnesses have stated that applicant was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.They further stated that they asked the applicant to drive the offending Jeep in a moderate speed, but he did not take any care or caution, and due to which accident occurred.Deceased was hit by the said offending Jeep.Accused/applicant did not stop the jeep at the spot and thereafter stopped it at Rambagh.These witnesses further stated that at Rambagh, they stated the incident to other people also.Udaibhan (PW/4) has further stated that from Rambagh, he further reached at the spot and saw that deceased Tarun Singh was alive in an injured condition.He took him to Choukhandi Hospital, but deceased died in the way.Ramlakhan Mishra (PW/5), who conducted mechanical examination of the Jeep bearing registration No.MP-17-B/3260 at P.S. Panwar, on 30.3.2000, has stated that foot brake, clutch, headlight, some play in steering, tyre, rod, tyre pressure were found correct.He proved his mechanical report as Ex.He has not stated anything in cross-examination.Dr. R.S. Gautam (PW/2), who conducted the post-mortem of deceased Tarun Singh, has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/3, has stated that cause of death was rupture of spleen in the stomach and internal heavy bleeding.As per post-mortem report of deceased Tarun Singh, the cause of death was heavy internal bleeding due rupture of spleen and from outside the intestine.The factum of death has also not been denied by the accused/applicant in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.From perusal of statement of prosecution witnesses and postmortem report of deceased, it stands proved that the jeep driven by the accused/applicant had hit the deceased and further that the applicant was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Tarun Singh.The evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant beyond the reasonable doubt.The submissions made before this Court were also made before the Courts below and have been duly considered in the impugned judgment.Once does not deter and the other may frustrate, thereby making the offender a hardened criminal.In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/-.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,882,620 |
The case-diary is not available but the copy of the charge-sheet has been filed by the applicant-accused along with the bail petition for perusal.This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the statement of the prosecutrix, aged 17 years, was recorded on 22.07.2015 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.).As per the contents of the said statement, when the prosecutrix was going to her grand-father's house at 08:30 pm on 23.06.2015, she was caught by the co-accused Vishnu and was forcibly taken away by him in a four-wheeler wherein the applicant-accused was already sitting in it but the applicant-accused did not commit sex with her.The prosecutrix was kept for three days in the forest where she was raped by the co-accused Vishnu.The prosecutrix was not acquainted with the applicant-accused before the happening of the alleged incident.His name has been recorded in the FIR as well as in the statement on the basis of co-accused Vishnu was calling his name as Sonti but no identification parade was got conducted by the prosecution from the prosecutrix during investigation.On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused has prayed for grant of bail.The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.On perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet, it is evident that the alleged incident had taken place on 23.06.2015 but the report was lodged on 14.07.2015 whereas as per the statement of the prosecutrix she returned home after three days i.e. on 26.06.2015 but no report was lodged immediately either by her or by her family members.Considering the age of the prosecutrix and the facts and circumstances as stated earlier, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the present applicant-accused.Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,869,195 |
During trial, on behalf of prosecution PW's.1 to PW.14 were examined and EX's.P1 to Ex.P8 documents were marked, however, no material objects were produced on the prosecution side.PW6 was a resident of the same Village, who signed in the observation mahazar, evidencing the arrest of the accused.The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.He has come forward with this appeal as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila, Court) Nagapattinam convicting him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- in 2 default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also convicted and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC.However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim, PW1, who is a minor, have fallen in love with each other three months prior to the occurrence.While so, on 29.06.2011 at 5.30 pm, when PW1 was alone in his house, the accused came there and asked her to come to Velayudham pumpset at 10.30 pm.When PW1 went there, the accused promised that he would marry her and under the false pretext of marriage, he attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.However, PW1 refused and when she was about to leave, the accused held her hands, made her to lay down and had sexual intercourse with her.When PW1 protested, he criminally intimidated her by showing a knife and by saying that he will kill her, if she disclose the matter to any one.On reaching home, PW1 slept in the cattle shed of her house and when it was questioned by her mother, she disclosed the act of the accused to her mother and she in turn intimated it to the Villagers.Thereafter, on 02.07.2011, a complaint was given to the Police Station.Onhttp://www.judis.nic.in the basis of such complaint, a case in Crime No. 431 of 2011 was registered.After investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mayiladuthurai, which was taken on file as PRC No.12 of 2012 and numbered as S.C.No.14 of 2013 and it was made over to the Sessions Court.On a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court relied on the version of the victim girl that she was subjected to physical intercourse against her will and she was forced by the accused and criminally intimidated that she should not disclose about his act to anyone.Accordingly, the trial Court laid the conviction as stated supra and hence this criminal appeal.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no recovery of any material object - knife, alleged to have been used in the commission of offence and therefore it should be considered in favour of the accused.Further, there is 3 days delay in intimation of the offence to the police and it is not properly explained.Moreover, the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the entire evidence of PW.7, who is the Doctor, who examined the victim /PW.1.http://www.judis.nic.in 4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) made her submissions in support of the case of the prosecution.6. Points for consideration:He also deposed that after the medical test, he entrusted the custody of the accused to the jail authorities.PW13, Dr.Sharmiladevi had deposed about the issuance of age certificate, Ex.P7, wherein she stated that as per the examination, PW1 may be above 16 years and below 18 years.. The Police witnesses PW.9, PW.10, PW.12 and PW.14 have deposed regarding the registration of the First Information Report and filing the charge sheet, after completion of investigation.On perusal of the evidence of the victim girl/PW.1, it is seen that at the time of occurrence, she was 15 years and the accused is living opposite to her residence and 3 1/2 months prior to the incident, the accused and the victim have fallen in love.On 29.06.2011, the parents of the victim girl gone to the Hospital to see her elder daughter, who gave birth to a child.Taking advantage of the situation of absence of the parents of the victim girl, while she was alone in her home, the accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in went to her house at 5.30 pm, asked the victim girl to come to Velaiyutham 6 Pumpset at 10.30 p.m. When the victim girl went to that place, the accused committed rape without her consent and against her willingness and at the time of occurrence he gave assurance to marry her and after the incident, the accused refused to marry her.PW.1 has also stated that against her willingness, he had sexual intercourse with her due to which her clothes were torn.Thereafter, he threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone by showing a knife and because of the said fear created by the accused, the victim girl did not make any noise.It is the specific case of PW.1 that the accused held her two hands, laid her straight and had sexual intercourse, during which he rubbed her breast and tore her dresses.After the incident, PW1 went to her home and slept in the cattle shed.PW.2 and 3 are the parents of the victim girl and they have categorically stated that they were roaming throughout mid-night in search of PW1 and in the next morning, they saw the victim girl sleeping in the cattle shed with torn cloths and found her with fearsome face.When they inquired the victim girl / PW.1, she spoken about what had happened and what act the accused had done on her body.Thereafter, they went to Panchayat on the next day of the incident.Since, the parents of the accused were not in their house and the accused has fled away from the Village, the parents of the victim girl lodged the complaint to the Police, after twohttp://www.judis.nic.in days of the scene of occurrence.From the evidence of PW.8/Head Mistress of school, who had issued the Ex.Further PW.13/Dr.Sharmiladevi, on perusal of X-ray, has certified that the age of the victim girl might be below 16 years and not exceeding 18 years, which could be seen from Ex.As per the date of birth certificate, Ex.P4, PW1 has even completed the age of 15 years as on the date of occurrence.In the absence of both, the Medical Certificate for determining age is taken into consideration.Accordingly, the trail Court has recorded the finding based upon the deposition of PW.8/Head Mistress who issued School Certificate, Ex.P4 and the Medical evidence given by the Doctor/PW.13 that the victim girl was a minor at the time of occurrence and it is a well considered and well merited conclusion and such findingshttp://www.judis.nic.in regarding the age of the victim girl is hereby confirmed.It has to be stated that in the cross examination of PW.1, it was projected that as if the victim girl had fallen in love with the accused and therefore, at the time of occurrence, she had given her consent for physical relationship, however, it remains to be stated that such an alleged consent of a minor is immaterial.In her deposition, PW1 has clearly deposed regarding the physical sexual assault caused by the accused on her body remains and she stood firm in her statement even in the cross examination.Rajeswari deposed that “fha';fs; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ mth; clYwt[f;F jFjpahdth; vd fz;lwpe;J mtUila gpwg;g[Wg;ig ghpnrhjid bra;jnghJ fd;dpj;jpiw xG';fw;w Kiwapy; fpHpe;J fhzg;gl;lJ. bti$dh xU tpuy; Rygkhf bry;Yk; mst[ ,Ue;jJ/” and under Ex.P.3-Accident Register, it is mentioned as Hymen, form irregularly; vagina easily admits 1 finger and from the above findings, the doctor opined that the victim is not a virgin.Thus, this Court finds the version of PW1-victim girl is cogent as the act of accused about sexual relation and she withstood lengthy cross-examination and firmly stated that without her will, the accused had sexual relationship and her evidence was duly stands corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.7-Dr.Rajeswari and Ex.P.3-documentary evidence and hence this Court finds that the evidence of P.W.1 is true and genuine and inspires the confidence of the Court to place reliance.http://www.judis.nic.in 9Furthermore, the incident occurred on the night at 10.30 pm and therefore, she did not disclose the said fact to her parents P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were away from station.In fact, soon after the occurrence due to fear created by the accused, PW1 slept in the cattle shed, while PW2 and PW3 searched for her throughout the night and only in the morning, they found PW1 was sleeping in the cattle shed.When enquired, PW1 informed the act of the accused and PW2 and PW3 immediately informed it to the Village Panchayat.PW4, one of the Panchayatars deposed that on 30.06.2011 morning, PW2 and PW3 complained about the act of the accused and asked to enquire the accused, but the accused was not in the Village.The complaint given by PW2 and 3 was conveyed to father of the accused and he informed that he do not know anything.Thereafter, PW4 asked PW2 and 3 to give a complaint to the Police.Thereafter Ex.P.1-complaint was lodged before the police.It is seen from the evidence of PW.1 that after committing the offence, the accused criminally intimidated the victim / PW1, with a knife and told her not tohttp://www.judis.nic.in disclose it to any one.PW1 due to fear did not disclose it to any one and she went 10 to her house and slept in the cattle shed.On the next day morning, when PW2 and 3 enquired PW1, she was frightened to disclose the matter to her parents and when her mother seen her with clothes torn, and insisted again, she deposed about what had happened.This was clearly deposed by PW1 in her evidence and this portion of evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged in the cross examination.Based upon the above version of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3, the trial Court rendered a finding that even though the knife used by accused was not recovered, the threat caused to the victim by accused is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 506(ii) of IPC.Thus, the trial Court rendered a categorical finding regarding the criminal intimidation caused by the accused.In this view of the matter the conviction and sentence passed by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in trial Court is hereby confirmed and this appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be 11 dismissed.Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.The respondent / Police is directed to secure the accused / appellant herein and commit him to undergo the remaining period of sentence.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.A.No.625 of 2015 26.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,871,735 |
(491)C. R. M. 8806 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 31, 2014 in connection with Purba Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 73 of 2014 dated April 26, 2014 under Sections 120B/420/406/504/506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Madan Shyamal @ Madan Gopal Shyamal & Anr.We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for granting anticipatory bail.Accordingly we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) (Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti-J.)
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,881,092 |
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2019 passed by A.C.J.M.- II, Jaunpur in Case No. 619 of 2017 (State Vs.The father of O.P. no. 2 namely Deena Nath executed an agreement on 26.3.2013 in favour of the present revisionist pertaining to disputed property and during consolidation proceeding new number of disputed property was allotted on the basis of alleged agreement.The revisionist is liable to be discharged and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,881,475 |
DATE :- 15 MAY 2017JUDGMENT :-Deceased Chhaya was the daughter of PW 1 SonabaiTukaram Sonar.The couple had two issues from the marriage, a son and adaughter.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was ill-treating deceased Chhaya on the ground of non-fulfillment of demandfor gold bangles weighing 5 tolas and Rs.50,000/- for repairing thehouse.As and when deceased Chhaya visited the house of her motherPW 1- Sonabai, she disclosed about the beating, abuses and the ill-treatment to her.PW 1- Sonabai would console Chhaya and send to herto the matrimonial house.PW 1- Sonabai also pleaded about thefinancial condition to the accused persons stating that she was unableto fulfill their demands.She wasaccompanied by her son and daughter.After dinner, deceased Chhayawept and informed PW 1 - Sonabai about the harassment meted out toher by the accused persons and that it was unbearable and miserablefor her to survive.She told PW 1 that the accused had demanded goldbangles weighing 5 tolas and Rs.50,000/- for construction of house andhad warned that she should not come back without them.However, onthe next day, PW 1 - Sonabai persuaded Chhaya to return to the houseURS 2 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 3 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205of accused no.1 and took her to the place where accused no.1 wasplying autorickshaw and left deceased Chhaya with her husband -accused no.1 and returned to her village.On the following Friday, PW 1::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::- Sonabai had gone to the house of deceased Chhaya to see if thingswere normal, at that time, children and husband of deceased Chhayawere in the house.Deceased Chhaya, falling on the shoulders of PW 1,told PW 1 that husband - accused no.1 and sister-in-law Chandrabai -accused no.3 had beaten her at night and they also uprooted her hairand threatened that she would not remain alive and they would kill her.Even on such complaint of deceased Chhaya, PW 1 - Sonabai againconsoled her and asked deceased Chhaya to wait for good days, andreturned to her village.On 24/04/2000 at 8.00 a.m. when PW 1 - Sonabai was in herhouse, the nephew of accused no.1 - Bhimrao and other two unknownpersons came to her house in a vehicle and informed that deceasedChhaya was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Kolhapur, as she wassuffering from vomiting and dysentery and informed PW 1 - Sonabai andothers should immediately accompany them.PW 1 - Sonabai and hertwo sons Vasant and Ashok, her brother Vithoba Potdar, brother-in-lawBalkrishna and his wife and son-in-law Ravindra came to the C.P.R.Hospital, Kolhapur.When they alighted from the vehicle, Bhimrao toldthem that deceased Chhaya had consumed poison on the earlier day andshe died when being treated.They were informed that the dead bodywas kept in the post-mortem room.Thereafter, post-mortem of the deadbody was performed.The investigation was handed over to Mr. Sampatrao Patil,API - PW 7 attached to Kodoli Police Station.PW 7 visited the spot ofincident and prepared a spot panchanama.PW 7 - Sampatrao Shamrao Patil is the API attached toKodoli Police Station, Kolhapur and was the I.O. He has stated in hisevidence that on 24/04/2000, he received a telephone message fromC.P.R. Police Station that the deceased had died due to consumingpoison and there was complaint of her relatives about her death.Heaccordingly, after making station diary entry, went to the C.P.R. Hospitalat Kolhapur.Thereafter he went to C.P.R. Hospital Police Chowky wheremother of deceased Chhaya orally lodged a report before him.It wasreduced into writing.On the basis of this report, he registered anoffence vide C.R.No.24/2000 and conducted the investigation.Heprepared spot panchanama.He recorded statements of seven witnessesof village Kushire.On receivingURS 6 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 7 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205the post-mortem report on 10/05/2000, he included the said report inthe case-papers and on 15/05/2000, he sent the viscera to CA at Pune.This appeal by the State impugns the judgment and orderdated 09/07/2002 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-Hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Kolhapur whereby the respondents - accused, stand acquitted ofthe offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504, 323 and 201read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').2. Accused no.2 - Baban Potdar expired during the pendencyof the trial.By an order dated 25/07/2001, the proceedings against himwere held to be abated.The office report indicates that during theURS 1 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 2 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205pendency of this appeal, accused no.1 - Bhimrao Potdar had also expiredand thus the appeal against him too stands abated.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::3. Facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal may statedas under :-On the same day, PW 1 - Sonabai lodged a reportat 17.15 hours at Kodoli Police Station.An offence underC.R.No.24/2000 came to be registered against the accused underSections 498A, 306, 323 and 504 read with 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::He also recorded thestatements of witnesses.On 24/04/2000 at 21.15 hours, he arrestedaccused nos.1 and 2 and recorded the statements of seven witnessesfrom village Fejivade.On10/05/2000, API Patil received the post-mortem report.On 15/05/2000,he forwarded the viscera to the Chemical Analyzer (for short, 'CA'),Pune.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filedagainst the accused on 13/06/2000 before the J.M.F.C., Panhala.Theoffences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learnedJ.M.F.C. committed the case for a trial before the Sessions Court atKolhapur.By an order dated 25/06/2001 passed by the learnedSessions Judge, the proceedings against accused no.2 were ordered tohave abated.Accused nos.1 and 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.To bring home the guilt of the accused, 7 witnesses wereexamined on behalf of the prosecution.Also, the statements of accusedunder Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.')came to be recorded.Accused Bhimrao had taken the defence of totaldenial.Accused no.3 - Chandrabai had taken a defence that she wasstaying at Mumbai and she had no concern with the case and that shebeing the sister of accused no.1 - Bhimrao, a false case was lodgedagainst her.On behalf of the accused, it was urged that except thetestimony of PW 1 - Sonabai, there was no other evidence on record asalso the report of the CA was in favour of the accused.According to thereport of the CA, no poison was detected in the samples sent by theURS 4 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 5 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205police and thus, there was no evidence about cause of death ofdeceased Chhaya and therefore, the accused cannot be convicted.Thelearned trial Judge, examining the evidence, has come to a conclusionthat none of the offences charged against the accused were proved andaccordingly has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable underSections 498A, 306, 504, 323 and 201 read with 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::I have heard Mr. Thakare, learned PP for State.With hisassistance, I have perused the evidence and record as also I have gonethrough the impugned judgment.PW 1 - Sonabai Tukaram Sonar, in her evidence, has statedthat after her marriage, deceased Chhaya, joined the house of theaccused.At that time, her brother-in-law accused no.2 - Baban and hersister-in-law accused no.3 - Chandra were staying with her deceaseddaughter Chhaya.She further deposed that accused no.3 was stayingseparately from her husband and she was staying along with accusedno.1 - Bhimrao.PW 1 - Sonabai further deposed that she visited thehouse of deceased Chhaya on the said friday to see how Chhaya waspulling on.At that time, Chhaya fell on her and told her that on theprevious night, 'accused persons had beaten her and uprooted her hairand she was told to bring gold bangles weighing 5 tolas and Rs.50,000/-and that they would kill her if she would not fulfill her demands.At thattime, PW 1 - Sonabai pleaded with the accused and told him that shewas unable to fulfill their demands and thereafter returned to hervillage.In the cross-examination, as against accused no.3 - Chandra,PW 1 - Sonabai has stated as under :-I have stated before the police while lodging the report that, Chandrabai was staying with accused Bhimrao till theURS 5 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 6 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205 death of my daughter Chaya.I have stated before the police that accused Chandrabai was not living with her husband and she was staying with accused Bhimrao.I have stated before the police that my daughter Chaya told me that I should give Rs.50,000/- and golden bangles to the accused or else the accused would kill her.It is not true to say that, I deposed falsely that on Friday I had gone to meet my daughter Chaya and at that time, she made complaint to me against the accused.It is not true to say that, I deposed falsely that prior to the incident, on Tuesday, my daughter came to me and at that time also, she made complaint to me against the accused-persons."::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::Apart from the above version, there is no other material in the evidenceof PW 1 - Sonabai against accused no.3 - Chandra.On 13/06/2000, on completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheetunder his signature.In the cross-examination, he has deposed that itwas revealed that accused no.3 was married and her husband wasstaying at Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::PW 2 - Ashok Tukaram Sonar is the brother of deceasedChhaya.His evidence is similar to the evidence of PW 1 - Sonabai.Hehas deposed that after marriage of deceased Chhaya, for about twoyears, there was no ill-treatment to deceased Chhaya.Thereafteraccused Bhimrao and accused Chandrabai started abusing and beatinghis sister Chhaya on the ground that she should bring golden banglesweighing 5 tolas and Rs.50,000/- for construction of the house.Hedeposed that whenever Chhaya used to come to his village, she wouldtell them about the ill-treatment to her.The rest of the testimony of PW2 is not different from what PW 1 - Sonabai has deposed.However, hedoes not attribute or make a specific reference of any role of accusedno.3 - Chandrabai to connect her to the crimes in question.PW 3 - Dhondiram Krishna Sonar is the cousin brother ofdeceased Chhaya who was residing in a house adjacent to the house ofPW 1 - Sonabai.The testimony of PW 3 - Dhoniram is not different fromwhat has been deposed by PW 1 and PW 2 that initially after marriage,for a period of two years, Chhaya was leading a happy marital life andthereafter she was ill-treated by her husband Bhimrao for a demand ofgold bangles weighing 5 tolas.However, in his evidence, he does not sayanything about the demand of Rs.50,000/- as stated by PW 1 - Sonabai.PW 3 - Dhondiram has deposed that deceased Chhaya was coming toURS 7 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 8 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205the village after marriage and used to inform about the ill-treatment andharassment and that it was going for about 8 to 9 years.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecutionare PW 4 - Subhash Tayappa Banage who is the Police Constableattached to Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur.He has prepared theinquest panchanama as witnessed by two panchas.PW 5 - Sanjay ArjunChavare is a Police Constable attached to Shahupuri Polilce Station.The prosecution also examined Dr.Ganesh Prabhakar Dhovalshank - PW 6 who was working at the C.P.R.Hospital at the relevant time when deceased Chhaya came to beadmitted on 24/04/2000 at 12.50 a.m. as brought by her husband.Hehas deposed that he examined deceased Chhaya on her admission to thehospital and was informed that the patient had consumed poison half anhour before she was brought to the hospital, as disclosed to him by therelatives of the deceased.He has stated that deceased Chhaya was in asemi-conscious condition and her general condition was poor and thatshe was not responding to any painful stimuli.Her pulse was feeble.He has stated that Chhaya died at 1.10 a.m. He also performed post-mortem on the dead body and found foul smelling white coloured liquidin the stomach and intestine.Post-mortem report was prepared by himand issued under his signature.He states that the viscera waspreserved and the opinion was reserved.He has deposed that thereport of the CA, it did not show presence of poisonous substance in theviscera.Nothing of any further relevance is elicited from the cross-examination.On the above evidence, it can surely be concluded thatthere is no evidence to bring about any incriminating connection ofURS 8 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 9 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205accused no.3 - Chandrabai to the crimes in question and to concludethat accused no.3 - Chandrabai is guilty of committing the chargedoffences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504, 323 and 201 of theIPC.What is significant is that,y it has clearly come in the evidence ofthe cousin brother of deceased Chhaya PW 3 - Dhondiram, that the ill-treatment to deceased Chhaya was going on for a period of 8 to 9 yearsfor the demand of golden bangles weighing 5 tolas not being fulfilled.Itis explicit from the evidence of PW 1 - Sonabai, PW 2 - Ashok and PW 3 -Dhondiram, that deceased Chhaya was being harassed on account ofnon-fulfillment of demand of golden bangles weighing 5 tolas andRs.50,000/- this on the backdrop that initially for about two years,everything was fine and all this trouble started only after the initial twoyears of marriage.In her statement recorded under Section 313 ofCr.P.C., accused no.3 has denied the prosecution story to be false.Whenasked that why the witnesses are deposing against her, her answer isthat being the relative of deceased Chhaya, the witnesses are deposingfalsely against her.Also when asked in Question No.21 as to what shewanted to say about the case by the prosecution, she has stated thatbeing the sister of accused no.1, false case has been lodged against her.She has stated that she is staying at Mumbai and had no concern withthis case.This version of accused no.3, cannot be discarded in theabsence of any contrary incriminating evidence to connect accusedno.3 to the crimes in question.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::There is no evidence to show the specific instances of anyharassment by accused no.3 or any other acts pointing out to the guiltof accused no.3 to have committed the offences in question.Thus, theURS 9 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 ::: 10 APEAL 1244-02.doc-205very background that for 8 to 9 years, no complaint whatsoever wasmade by deceased Chhaya or any of her relatives including PW 1 -Sonabai against accused no.3, also becomes a relevant factor.Mereassertion of PW 1 and probably the mechanical repetition of the sameby PW 2 and PW 3, certainly would not be sufficient to bring home theguilt of accused no.3 to have committed the offences in question.Thelearned PP is also not in a position to show anything which wouldrequire this Court to displace and interfere with the findings of the trialCourt to come to a different conclusion.I therefore do not find anyperversity or illegality in the findings of the learned Trial Judge againstaccused no.3 - Chandra as in my opinion, the same are correctlyrecorded by the learned Trial Judge and considering the case of theprosecution against accused no.3 - Chandra, the evidence of PW 1 -Sonabai, mother of deceased Chhaya, and the evidence of PW 7 - APISampatrao Patil, the Investigating Officer, are relevant.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::Resultantly, the appeal needs to fail.It is accordinglydismissed.Bail bond of accused no.3 - Chandra shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:34:08 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,885,103 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SC.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.This Court carefully perused the final report and found that, apart from the petitioner herein, there is also one other accused by name Ramesh [A1] and thus, there are two accused in this case.The provision of law cited in the final report is not the on all and end all of the prosecution case.Because, it is for the Trial Court to frame charges after perusing the final report and the accompanying documents.In the result, there are no merits in the petition and accordingly, dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1.The Inspector of Police,Melchengam Police Station,Melchengam, Tiruvannamalai District.gya CRL.OP.No.21167 of 201502.09.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
308,971 |
The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to issue a direction tothe first respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.868 of 2010, on the fileof the second respondent and to transfer the investigation of the same to thethird respondent and to file final report against all culprits in accordancewith law.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that thepetitioner's younger brother by name Manikandan was murdered by six namedaccused; one Udhayakumar is an advocate and his brother Udhayashankar isworking as Sub Inspector in intelligence wing; the said Udhayakumar is runningchit business in the village; the deceased Manikandan collected someinformations regarding chit business and informed the same to the free legal aidfor Human Rights Violation, Nagercoil; the founder of the legal aid center, senta complaint to the higher officers informing the activities of the said SubInspector, Udhayashankar and on 06.07.2010, a news was also published in aweekly viz., "Kumadam Reporter" and so the accused believed that the brother ofthe petitioner was the root cause for the news.He would further submit that due to the said motive, they hatched conspiracyin the house of the said Udhayakumar to do away with the life of the saidManikandan and tTo execute the same, on 07.07.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., theaccused one Thiyagu, Jagatsingh, Chauhan, Raja, Sivakandan along withUdhayakumar searched the deceased Manikandan and they murdered him with deadlyweapons and caused damage to the vehicle; iImmediately, the petitioner gave acomplaint before the second respondent police on the basis of which, a case hasbeen registered in Crime No.868 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 148, 341,294(b) and 302 I.P.C. r/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act against Thiyagu, Jagatsingh,Chauhan, Udhayakumar, Udhayashankar, Raja, Sivakandan and two others; thebrother-in-law of the said Udhayakumar viz., Selvakumar has handed over the saidThyagarajan, Jagatsingh, Chauhan, Raja, Sivakandan and Sudan to the secondrespondent; in order to safeguard the culprits namely Udhayakumar andUdhayashankar retained them in the police Station till 10.07.2010 withoutproducing them before the Court; the said Udhayakumar and Udhayashankar arehaving many criminal cases and they have influenced in the Police Department;now the second respondent having hand in glove with the said Udhayakumar andUdhayashankar, taking effective steps to delete their names from the array ofthe accused in the charge sheet.He would further submitted that even though on 12.07.2010, at about 10.00a.m.the accused Udhayakumar has participated in a function at PazhavilaiPolytechnic College, the second respondent has not taken any steps to arresthim; moreover, the Investigation Agency has recorded the 161 statement of otherwitnesses, whereas the eye witness is ready to give 164 statement before theMagistrate, but they are not taking steps to substantiate the same.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also file an affidavitof this petitioner and other eye witness.and submit that on the basis of thenews published in "Kumadam Reporter" only, the occurrence has been taken placeand to clarify the same as to when the article has been published, he filed adocument showing the news published in "Kumadam Reporter" on 18.07.2010; sinceone of the accused is Sub Inspector of Police and he is intelligence wing, thePolice officers have not taken any steps to investigate the matter in a rightand proper manner and they are taking steps to delete the name of Udhayashankar,Sub-Inspector of Police and his brother Udhayakumar.He further submitted thatsince he wants fair and proper investigation in the right direction andapprehends that he will not get proper direction in the hands of the secondrespondent, he prays for the transfer of investigation and to substantiate hiscase, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) had filed a counteraffidavit stating that after receipt of the complaint, the case has beenregistered and it was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Nagercoil on the same day.Immediately, investigation has been commenced, thesecond respondent conducted the inquest and sent the body for autopsy, heexamined the witnesses and recorded the statements of the eye witnesses viz.,Thirukumar, Rajmohan and Sekar and prepared the observation Mahazar, roughsketch and recovered the material objects from the scene of occurrence.Thatapart, he also examined Jeyachandran, Sivachandran, Thirumohan and Vinoth.Aspecial team was formed for arresting the accused persons in this case.On10.07.2010, Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan, Jegan @ Jegathsingh, Chauhan, Raja @ AshokKumar, Sivakandan and Sudhan were arrested and their confession statements havebeen recorded and two motor cycle has been seized and they are remanded tojudicial custody.It is also stated that so far 50 witnesses were examined,weapons have been recovered, the vehicle of the deceased was sent to R.T.O.,statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded from Jeyachandran,Sriraghavan and Vivekananthan and they also made a requisition to the TelephoneCompanies seeking details of the phone calls of the accused.Therefore, the motivealleged by the petitioner is found to be not correct and except this petitioner,none has deposed about the presence of Udhayakumar in the scene of occurrence.It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the founder of the legal aidcenter for Human Rights Violation is one Srinivasa Prasath, who is also anadvocate practicing in Nagercoil and there is complaint and counter complaintbetween Udhayakumar and Srinivasa Prasath, they have motive against each other,they are taking steps to investigate the matter in Crime No.653 of 2010, whichwas already registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Vijayamohan.Neither Udhayakumar nor Udhayashankar were arrayed as accused in the said caseand hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.Thelearned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has not able to give any reason as towhy the Investigation Agency has not taken any steps to record statement underSection 164 Cr.P.C. of the other eye witnesses including the petitioner herein.Admittedly, Udhayakumar is arrayed as A3 in the F.I.R. and his brotherUdhayashankar is arrayed as A4, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police inS.B.C.I.D., the occurrence has been taken place on 07.07.2010 at 18.30 hours andthe complaint has been given on the same day at 19.00 hours and in that, thename of the accused has been clearly mentioned and the manner of the assault hasalso been mentioned.In such circumstances, it is the duty of the InvestigationAgency to investigate the matter on the line.As already noted during the pendency of the writ petition beforethe High Court and special leave petition before this Court the case was furtherconverted from 304 IPC to 323/34 IPC.P.C. todirect the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigationof the case.On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation willinvestigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will furthersubmit additional charge sheet, if any, in accordance with law.The appealstands disposed of accordingly.N.V.K. Appeal disposed of.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case inCrime No.868 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent is transferred to thethird respondent.1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kottar, Kanyakumari District.3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,089,959 |
His father opposed such act and the appellants assaulted him.He was present at the time of occurrence.The appellants assaulted him on his head with a lathi causing incised wound.He lost unconscious and was medically treated at Vidyasagar Hospital.He made statement before a Magistrate.He proved his signature on the statement.P.W. 8, Abdul Hai Molla, deposed that on 5th August, 1985 between 6 AM and 6.30 AM he had gone to see his business and on his return he noticed that the appellants being armed with lathi were assaulting Akbar Ali on the village path near a bridge.He protested.Giasuddin Sk., the youngest son of Akbar Ali rushed to the spot.The accused Niamat also assaulted Giasuddin on the head.Number of people gathered at the spot.Local people sent Akbar and Giasuddin to Bishnupur Police Station.Kalo Sk, Dulal Sk.And Akkas Mistry accompanied with them to the police station.Police seized five lathis made of bamboo, one lathi made of Tal tree, another lathi made of wood.Four of those lathies were seized from the house of Asmat and remaining three were seized from the resident of Nousad.He signed the seizure list.He gave a statement before the Magistrate.P.W. 9 was an employee of P.G. Hospital.He deposed that police seized one bed-head ticket of Akbar Ali from the Hospital.He signed on the seizure list.P.W. 10 was an ASI attached to Bishnupur Police Station.He drew up the formal FIR (Ext. 7).P.W. 11, Prabir Narayan Sen, a doctor, was attached to the Vidyasagar Hospital at the point of time.On 05-08-1985 he examined Akbar Ali Sk.and Giasuddin Sk.He proved the injury reports (Ext. 8 and 8/1).P.W. 12, Paritosh Chakraborty, was a constable attached to Bhowanipore P.S. He took the dead body of Akbar Ali from SSKM Hospital to the Morgue and identified the dead body to the doctor.P.W. 13, Ram Chandra Bera deposed that 5/5 year back at 6.00 AM he was brushing his teeth on the wooden bridge when he heard a scream close to the bridge.He found that the appellants were assaulting Akbar Ali with lathi.Thereafter he escaped through the bamboo bridge and crossed the khal.In cross- examination, he stated that he was examined after 2/3 days after the offence.He also stated that the cases are pending against him for firing at the police.P.W. 14, Salil Kr.Ghosh, was the investigating officer in the instant case.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map with index (Ext.9).He seized a blood stained red-bordered Dhoti produced by Kalo Sk under a seizure list.He proved the seizure list (Ext. 1).He seized the bed head ticket of Akbar Ali Sk.at SSKM Hospital under a seizure list (Ext. 2).He collected injury report of Akbar Ali Sk and Giasuddin Sk.He collected post mortem report and submitted charge sheet.From the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that P.W 2 Kalo Sk., P.W. 6 Akkas Ali Mistri, P.W. 7 Giasuddin Sk., P.W. 8 Abdul Hai Molla and P.W. 13 Ram Chandra Bera are the eye witnesses in the instant case.Out of them, Giasuddin Sk. is also an injured witness.The witnesses stated that there was a dispute over planting of Krishnachura tree on the date of the incident and over the incident the appellants assaulted the victim Akbar Ali Sk.with lathi and when his son, Giasuddin, came to his rescue he was also assaulted.Both of them were admitted at Vidyasagar Hospital and thereafter Akbar was transferred to SSKM Hospital where he breathed his last.I find that the presence of all the appellants being armed with lathi and other weapons has been consistently deposed by the said witnesses.However, apart from Nausad Ali there is no specific overt act attributed to the appellants with regard to the assault on both Akbar Ali Sk and Giasuddin.The witnesses have deposed that Nausad hit Akbar Ali Sk on the head and as a result he fell down and when Giasuddin tried to save his father, he was also assaulted by Nausad.In view of the alteration of conviction of the said appellants and keeping in mind that they do not have any criminal antecedents and the incident occurred three decades ago, I direct that the appellant Niamat Ali Molla may be released on probation upon executing a bond of peace and good behaviour for a period of two years with two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.I find that appellants, Asmat Ali Molla, Anamat Ali Molla and Md. Ali Molla have not been arrested and are absconding.In the event, they appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore within a month and they shall be released on probation on execution of a bond of peace and good behaviour for a period of two years with two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, failing which they shall suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years each and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month more.Period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellants, Asmat Ali Molla, Anamat Ali Molla and Md. Ali Molla during investigation, inquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, if imposed on them, under Section 428 Cr.P.C.The appeals are thus disposed of.Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.