Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

test

like 0

2.Prosecution case in brief was that Tuliya Devi, daughter of informant Bhullu Rajbhar (PW-1) was married to Gullu 5 years ago.After marriage Tuliya Devi was treated with cruelty by her husband Gullu, father-in-law Bal Chand and mother-in-law Ramwati for demand of dowry.For this reason these three accused had committed murder of Tuliya Devi on 8.5.2010 by inflicting injuries on her body at their house situate in village Chaubepur, police station- Mardah, district Ghazipur and tried to dispose of her dead body.After receiving knowledge of this incident, victim's father Bhullu (informant) had given a written report (Ex-Ka-1) to the police on the basis of which case crime no. 689 of 2010 was registered.3.In the aforesaid case inquest of the dead body was performed on 08.05.2010 and postmortem of the deceased was conducted the same evening at 9:50 pm.In the postmortem report several lacerated wounds and other marks of injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.In postmortem (Ex-Ka-1) the doctor had opined that cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of the said ante-mortem injuries.In this report approximate time of death was reported about 1 day from the time of postmortem.After completion of investigation police had submitted charge-sheet against three accused Gullu, Bal Chand and Ramwati for offences under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.5.In support of charges prosecution side examined PW-1, Bhullu (informant), PW-2 Barmati (mother of the deceased), PW-3 - Constable Sunil Kumar Singh (who prepared chik FIR and registerd case), PW-4 - Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma (who performed the postmortem), PW-5 Vinay Kumar Rai, Naib Tehsildar (for inquest report) and PW-6 Chrinjeev Nath Sinha (Investigation Officer).Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod KumarSrivastava, J.)1.This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and punishment dated 28.2.2012 passed in State Vs.Gullu and others relating to Case Crime No. 689 of 2010, police station Mardah, district Ghazipur by which three accused Gullu, Bal Chand and Smt .Ramwati were convicted for charge under section 302/34 IPC and were punished with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default of payment three months simple imprisonment).4.During trial all the accused were charged for offences under section 498-A, 304 B IPC and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, alongwith alternative charge framed later on for offence under section 302 IPC.6.After closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused were recorded in which they denied the facts of charge as well as evidence adduced against them, without any specific averments.Defence side had examined DW-1 Madan, r/o village Chaubeypur.7.After receiving evidence from both the sides and after affording opportunity of hearing as well as considering the argument of the parties, learned Addl.Sessions Judge passed judgment dated 28.2.2012 by which all the accused were acquitted from the charges under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but were convicted for the charge under section 302-IPC.Thereafter the trial court had afforded an opportunity of hearing on the point of quantum of sentence to the accused and passed orders of punishment as above.Aggrieved by this judgment dated 28.2.2012 all the three accused have preferred the present appeal.8.Sri Sudist and Sri Janardan Singh Yadav appeared for appellants; and State was represented by Mrs. Usha Kiran, AGA.9.A perusal of evidence adduced during trial indicates that during post-mortem following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Tuliya Devi that were caused or occurred approximately at the time mentioned in the charge, i.e., anytime in the night of 8/9-5-2010:1.Lacerated wound left side chin 6 cm x 1 cm mussel deep chin.2.Lacerated wound from right shoulder to just below right elbow 35 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.3.Abrasion 5cm x 2 cm just laterac of left eye.4.Abrasion on top of right shoulder 8 cm x 4 cm.5.Abrasion 20cm x 10 cm right side chest.6.brasion 8 cm x 2 cm right iliac chest.7.Lacerated wound 5 cm x 3 cm at middle of front of right of leg underlying bond was fractured.8.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm just below right knee.9.Lacerated wound 8 cm x 3 cm below front of left kneel under lying bone was fractured.10.PW-4 the doctor reported that the cause of death of victim-deceased Tuliya Devi was shock and haemmerhage due to the above mentioned ante-mortem injuries.Although the defence had adduced one witness to indicate that the cause of death of the deceased may be accidental falling from the roof, and DW-1 Madan was examined in this regard but these facts could not be substantiated in the light of available evidence and circumstances.11.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that this finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct that deceased Tuliya Devi had died due to injuries found on her body in the house of the accused-appellants at about the time mentioned in the charge, and the accused-appellants were responsible for causing such injuries to Tuliya Devi.In these circumstances, the trial court had rightly reached to the conclusion that due to the above mentioned deliberate caused injuries Tuliya Devi died, and accused-appellants are responsible for inflicting those homicidal injuries.12.Learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered facts and circumstances including evidence adduced and reached to the conclusion that though there is no conclusive evidence relating to dowry death and demand of dowry, but injuries found on body of the deceased were not accidental.Trial Court found that those injuries were homicidal, for inflicting of which accused persons were responsible, because it were only they who were present in their house when such injuries had occurred on the body of the deceased Tuliya Devi.13.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly admitted the contents of facts relating to charge, namely victim Tuliya Devi having succumbed to the injuries found on her body in the house of appellants.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Item No. 103And In the matter of: Debasish Banerjee & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No.994 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013 under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.In our opinion, the Petitioner No. 1, Debasish Banerjee, who is the husband of the Complainant, does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.As regards the other Petitioners, who are the relatives of the Petitioner No.1, there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.Hence, we allow their application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, Partha Sarathi Banerjee, Smt. Minati Banerjee, Smt. Mekhla Banerjee and Smt. Moushumi Banerjee, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond `5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Initially, as many as three accused persons came to be tried by theSessions Judge, they being accused No.1, Kalyan, accused No.2, Dasrathand accused No.3, Smt. Usha.While accused No.2, Dasrath is thepresent appellant, accused No.1, Kalyan Singh and accused No.3, Smt.Usha are his father and sister, respectively.An intimationregarding death came to be given to the Police Station Pandhokhar, Distt.The said intimation was given by the complainant Vadehi Sarans/o Ramanand Kaurav who was none else but the father of the deceasedPinki.It was, inter alia, stated that on that day i.e. 12.8.1992 in themorning his son Jitendra Singh had gone to village Saujna for Rakhi 3festival to his daughter Pinki's house.But he returned at about 7 p.m. andtold him that Pinki had caught fire and was sent to Daboh for treatment.Vadehi Saran further stated that on hearing the news, he along with someco-villagers went to Daboh.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the HighCourt dismissing the appeal of the appellant Dasrath.He was convictedby the Trial Court of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code(IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years andpay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default directed to suffer furtherimprisonment for one year.He was also convicted for the offence underSection 201, IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one 2year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer three month's furtherimprisonment.The Trial Court had alsoconvicted Kalyan Singh for the same offence.However, it acquittedaccused No.3, Smt. Usha from all the charges.Both the accused had filedan appeal challenging their conviction and the sentences before the HighCourt.However, during the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 KalyanSingh expired and his appeal, thus, abated.The appeal of Dasrath, thepresent appellant came to be dismissed by the High Court and that is howhe is before us.Shortly stated, the prosecution story was that Dasrath was marriedto Pinki who died under suspicious circumstance of burning.However, one Santosh belonging to his villagemet him near Dugdha Dairy and told him that Pinki had died.Then VadehiSaran along with others went to village Saujna.But by the time theyreached there, Pinki's cremation was over.It was because of this that theycame to the Police Station and further action was requested on the basisof the death report.On this basis, a First Information Report was got registered on16.8.92 wherein it was recorded that the death intimation was given on12.8.92 at 23.15 hours orally about the death of Pinki.It was recorded ona preliminary inquiry made by Head Constable Jaswir Singh by visitingvillage Saujna and the Station House Officer R.S. Purohit had also madeinquiries relating to the death.The place of occurrence was examined bySDOP R.K. Hirodia and inquiry was made from the deceased's fatherVadehi Saran, uncle Uttam Singh, brothers Janved Singh and JitendraSingh, mother Vidya Devi and sister Pratibha.During this inquiry, it wasfound that the deceased was married 2 years prior to the date of incidentand because of the non-payment of dowry, her husband Dasrath, father-in-law Kalyan Singh and Sister-in-law Usha were harassing her.The earlier 4statement given by Vadehi Saran was repeated.It was then mentionedthat on 12.8.1992 the sister-in-law Usha, husband Dasrath caught hold ofPinki and father-in-law Kalyan Singh poured kerosene oil on her and sether on fire because of which she got burnt.The accused thereaftercremated her and cleaned the place where occurrence had taken place.On the basis of this, further investigation ensued and after itscompletion, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court for offences underSections 302, 304 B and 201 IPC.The accused were chargedaccordingly.The prosecution, during the trial, examined as many as 11witnesses.The accused persons abjured the guilt and as stated earlieronly two of them came to be convicted, namely, Kalyan Singh andDasrath.However, due to the death of Kalyan Singh during the pendencyof the appeal, the appeal filed by Dasrath alone is to be considered.Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. J.N. Singh appearing on behalf of theaccused attacked the judgment of both the Courts below, firstly,contending that conviction under Section 304B, IPC and Section, 201, IPCwas wholly incorrect as it was not proved that Pinki had died a suspiciousor un-natural death within the seven years of her marriage nor was herbody found.He also contended that there was no question of demandingany dowry as no complaint was ever made for dowry nor was there anyevidence regarding the demands of dowry.More particularly, Vadehi Saran (PW 4),Janved Singh (PW-5), Pratibha (PW-6) and Jitendra Singh (PW-8) hadclearly asserted that the dowry was asked for by the accused persons.Learned Counsel further contended that if Pinki had died of burning, areport ought to have been made for un-natural death which the accuseddid not bother to make, instead they had cremated the body of Pinkiwithout even intimating the relatives of the deceased and also withoutwaiting for the police.This was the most suspicious circumstance whichpointed towards the guilt of the accused.Vadehi Saran has also specifically stated in his evidence thatafter 1 = years of the marriage when he went to the house of Pinki in themonth of Shravan, door was closed and the appellants were beating Pinkiand that the floor was smeared with blood and blood was also oozing outfrom the mouth of Pinki.The appeal is, therefore,dismissed.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminalproceedings in S.C.No.118 fo 2014 on the file of the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Madurai.2.The case of the prosecution is that Rani Mangammal Palace siutated atNo.46, Vadakku Chithirai Veedhi was under the control of Public WorksDepartment and the said building had housed the offices of the PWD and therecord room is being maintained on the south-easter corner.Behind the saidbuilding, the accused had owned a building and when the first accused wasdemolishing his building on 23.07.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, the accused haddemolished the roof of the said Palace and had caused a loss ofRs.1,50,000/-.Therefore, the petitioners were charged for the offences underSection 147, 148, 427, 109 I.P.C and r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act andSection 30(1)(i)(iv) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites andRemains Act, 1958 r/w 149 I.P.C.Thereby, they compliedthe said condition.Thereafter, the Junior Engineer, Public Works Department(i/c) Building, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2015 before thelearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in which, he sought permission towithdraw a sum of Rs.2,25,500/- for the purpose of repairing the saidbuilding.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai by order dated09.06.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2015 permitted the Junior Engineer, PublicWorks Department to withdraw the said amount to repair the said Palace.Thereafter, the amount has been withdrawn and the said Palace got repaired.Therefore, nothing survives to prosecute the petition as alleged by theprosecution.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also confirmed the same and stated that the amount has been withdrawn by the Public Works Departments and the said Palace got repaired.Further, he has produced the Status Report,dated 11.10.2018 in which, it was stated that the said Palace already gotrepaired.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side).6.Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering thereport submitted by the Public Works Department, the proceedings inS.C.No.118 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Madurai against the petitioners alone shall stand quashed.Accordingly, thisCriminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed.1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Madurai2.The Inspector of Police B1, Vilakkuthoon Police Station Madurai City3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

nghdpw;F bjhlh;g[ bfhz;legh; ehd; tpz;!;lhh; rptf;Fkhh;nuhl gpuz;l; Rnuc&; ngRnwd; nkk;/ eP';f Vd; njitapy;yhk mtu gifr;rpf;fpl;L ,Uf;fp';f/ Rk;kh ml;$!;l; gz;zp ngh';f c';fSf;F vy;yhhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 trjpfisa[k; bra;J bfhLf;fr; brhy;Ynwd;/ Rk;kh tPk;gor;rpfpl;L ,Ue;jp';fd;dh njitapy;yhk khd khpahija ,Hg;gnjhl capiua[k; ,Hf;f neUk; vd;W brhy;yp kpul;ol;L nghid fl;gz;zpl;lhh;/ mjd;gpwF mnj bek;ghpy; ,Ue;J nghd; br";r egh; ehd; brhd;dij nahrpr;rp ghj;jp';fsh.2.The petitioner has been added as A3 in the final report.Initially an F.I.R. was registered by the respondent Police in which the name of this petitioner was not found.Thereafter, the respondent Police investigated the case and filed a final report, wherein this petitioner was added as 3rd accused.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the final report has been taken cognizance by the Court below for the offence under Sections 294, 353, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the relevant portion of the statement given by the defacto complainant before thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondent Police and the same is extracted hereunder:9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Zair has impugned the order dated 27-4-2003 passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, District Magistrate, Hardoi (opposite party No. 1), detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order, along with the ground of detention, which are also dated 27-4-2003, was served on the petitioner detenu on 27-4-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively to the petition.The prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu prompting the first respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2).In short their perusal shows as under :--On 2-3-2003, at about 3.00 p.m. the detenu along with his brothers Babu and Bhure, in furtherance of their common intention, reached near the house of Bajhul in village Mahmoodpur Saraiya, Patre was also present there.They instigated and the detenu's brother Babu fired on Patre, who died as a result thereof on the spot.The detenu, with a country made rifle of 315 bore, fired on injured Ruab Begam.Thereafter the detenu along with his associates firing went away.As a consequence of the prejudicial act committed by the detenu and his associates, a commotion was created in the locality and people closed their doors and houses and hid inside.Those who were working in the fields, ran away.During investigation of the aforesaid C.R. the statements of Samsul Hussain and Sagir were recorded and they reiterated the aforesaid facts.Since the detenu had used unlicensed fire arm, C.R. No. 121 of 2003 under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was registered against him on 7-3-2003 at police station Pihani, district Hardoi, on the basis of complaint lodged by S.O. R.N. Chodhary.A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that on the aforesaid C.Rs.and some other material referred to in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from committing similar prejudicial acts, in future it was imperative to detain him under Section 3(2) of National Security Act.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.Although in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a number of pleadings and pleaded a number of grounds, but since, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the pleadings contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition and Ground VIII of para 33 thereof, we are not adverting to other pleadings and grounds of challenge.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.We have considered the materials on record and we find that the instant case is a counter case to an earlier criminal case registered at the behest of one of the accused persons.In view of the aforesaid fact and keeping in mind the period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under the POCSO Act at Barrackpore on condition that he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ORDER Kidwai, J.Kirpa Ram, Siaram, Ram Harsh and Bijai Bahadur were prosecuted on the complaint of Ram Asrey under Sections 379, 447 and 352/506, Penal Code, on the allegation that they had entered a grove situated in Ajitpur on 29-4-1949 and cut mangoes worth about Rs. 35/- from the grove.The case was tried and disposed of by Shri Kamta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Kaisarganj at Bahraich.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Appellant-Abdul Rehman lodged a complaint with the Crime against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, accusing the Respondent-K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq and four others of commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant's case is that the accusations made by the appellant in the report lodged with the Women Cell were totally false and fabricated.In particular, allegations regarding demand of dowry as a condition precedent for performance of Nikah between the complainant's nephew and Ms Aliya-appellant No.3 in this appeal were also false and unfounded.Aggrieved by the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the appellant preferred a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who dismissed the same as barred by limitation.The appellant then preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi for quashing complaint No.180/1 of 2002 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and all 4 proceedings consequent thereto.The High Court has, as mentioned above, dismissed the said petition holding that since no judicial proceedings were pending in any Court at the time when the complaint under Sections 211 and 500 IPC was filed by the respondent-complainant, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not attracted nor was there any illegality in the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the appellants to face trial.Warrants were issued for the arrest of the accused, all of whom surrendered before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, who passed an order releasing them on bail.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra, J.The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9/10th November 2000 passed by the District Magistrate Juunpur dismissing the petitioner from service.The main grounds upon which the said order has been challenged by the petitioner is that the said order was not proceeded by any proper enquiry proceedings and immediately after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry officer without conducting any proper enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice has submitted his enquiry reports finding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him.Reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued thereafter was also not considered by the respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order.The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Ahalmad in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Jaunpur.On 19.5.1997 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner by one Mohan Lal Prajapati which was registered as case crime No. 75 of l999 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code.It is stated that on the basis of allegations made in the said first information report, a charge sheet dated 27.3.2000 was issued to the petitioner.The said charge sheet has referred to a preliminary enquiry report.The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.2000 and asked for permission to examine the witnesses whose statements were being sought to be relied upon and also asked to be permitted to lead his evidence and for personal hearing.It is alleged by the petitioner that enquiry officer has neither fixed any date nor summoned the petitioner at any date for the enquiry.The respondent No. 1 without considering the reply of the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order of dismissal.A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the averments made by the petitioner to the effect that he was not given any opportunity of hearing has been denied in as much as it has been stated that since the enquiry officer has given reasons for recording his findings, therefore, the principles of natural justice has been complied with.It is alleged that said Ram Devar Yadav had changed the number from execution case from 5 of 1996 to 6 of 1996 in the phostat copy of the power of attorney.On the basis of the said forgery Ram Devar Yadav submitted an application for withdrawing the compensation.In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has re-iterated his averments to the effect that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for cross examination of the prosecution witnesses or to lead his evidence in defence and opportunity of hearing was not given to him by the enquiry officer.It has been staled by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other person namely Hari Shanker Yadav who was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Misc.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Prosecution's case in short is that on 1.5.1995 at about 1.30 pm, R.A. Mishra (P.W.1) Junior Engineer of MPEB went to the Village Kachhyaguda, Police Station Ladhora, District Tikamgarh to examine the electric connection of the respondent.At about 1.30 p.m it was found that the respondent was running a thresher with the help of a direct wiring from L.T line.He did not take any connection from MPEB and no meter was found in 2 that connection.3-4 bags of wheat were found prepared by help of that thresher.Shri Mishra prepared a Panchanama (Ex.P/2) at the spot and seized a motor, starter and wires etc. A siezure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared.Thereafter, a complaint was made to the SHO, Police Station Lidhora.It was also mentioned in the report that the respondent abused him with obscene words and threatened him.The case was registered at crime no.69 of 1995 by the Police and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.The respondent abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was not using any thresher and therefore, Shri Mishra could not seize the thresher.He accordingly seized a motor lying in the hut of the respondent.The respondent was falsely implicated due to enmity with line man Panchu and Hallu.Kishorilal (D.W.1) and Ram Bharose (D.W.2) were examined from the side of the defence.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned JMFC Jatara acquitted the respondent from all the charges.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.If the respondent would have threatened the complainant then such threatening must be corroborated by the other eye witnesses.As far as the case of theft of electrical energy is concerned, offence under Section 39 of the Act could be made out but, no Magistrate could take cognizance of that offence if an appropriate complaint is not filed by a competent person as per provisions of Section 50 of that Act and therefore, it was not for the Sub Engineer to lodge an FIR before the Police but, it was for him to get a complaint lodged by the Electrical Inspector.He was required to report the matter to the Electrical Inspector who, could lodge a complaint and therefore, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Act and therefore, no conviction could be directed for that offence.Therefore, the learned JMFC has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under Section 39 of the Act.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :--There were inimical relations between the appellant and the acquitted accused on one hand and the informant Nana Kute P.W. 6, his wife Akkatai P.W. 7, his father Dada Kute P.W. 8 and his brother, the deceased Ausinath Kute, on the other.The details of the said enmity have been furnished by the informant, Akkatai and Dada In their evidence but, we do not want to burden our judgment by setting them out.Suffice it is to mention that the enormity of the enmity was such that at the time of the incident, the informant and others on one hand and the appellant and the acquitted accused on other hand were not on speaking terms.On 25-7-1985, the informant-Nana Kute and Dilip son of Prayagabai, were working in the field of the latter.After the work was over, the informant asked Dilip to take away the bullock cart and told him that he would collect the labour charges from Prayagabai.Thereafter, the informant (sic) towards his house by footpath.On the way near the field of Rama Chaugule, he met Kisan Ghatole, the appellant and the acquitted accused Rajaram.While he was talking with Kisan Ghatole, the appellant came between him and Kisan and inflicted a fist blow on his stomach and pushed Kisan.When he asked him why had given a fist blow, he replied that he would show the force of the blow.Thereafter, the appellant went to his house and the informant returned to his house.On reaching his house, the informant narrated the incident to his father Dada, his brother Ausinath and his mother.Ausinath told him that he would go and pacify the appellant's party and he should wait.The time was about 6.30 p.m. As Ausinath started alone, the informant's mother who understandably was nervous followed him along with the informant's wife Akkatai.The informant's mother and Akkatai met the appellant in the field of Dhurpabai.The informant saw this from his house and proceeded in the direction.On hearing the cries of his wife Akkatai, he started running with a stick in his hand towards the field of Dhurpabai.No sooner had he reached the aforesaid field, he saw the appellant inflicting two knife blows, one each on the chest of Ausinath, who fell down as a result thereof.Thereafter, the appellant came and inflicted two knife blows on the person of the informant.The acquitted accused Sukhdeo who had also reached there, along with the other acquitted accused persons, inflicted axe blow on the back of the informant.Thereafter, the informant started moving his stick.The informant's father also reached in the meantime.He and the informant's mother fell down on the body of Ausinath in a bid to save him.Thereupon, the acquitted accused Ishwar Shinde inflicted a stick blow on the forehead of the informant's father.The acquitted accused Uttam and Sukhdeo with axes in their hands and the acquitted accused Rajaram, Ganpat and Ishwar with sticks in their hands also tried to assault the informant and others and they scuffled with them.In the meantime, Hariba Kute, Pralhad Kute and Rama Kute came there.The appellant and the accused ran away towards Shindewadi, Pralhad Kute brought a bullock cart.Ausinath was put in the same and brought to Sangola.Hariba Kute, the informant and his parents also accompanied Ausinath in the bullock cart.Ausinath was taken to Government dispensary at Sangola where the doctor pronounced him dead.Seven persons namely Deoppa Ishwar Shinde, Ganpat Maruti Shinde, Rajaram Ganpat Shinde, Uttam Rajaram Shinde, Sukhdeo Rajaram Shinde, Ishwar Maruti Shinde and Murlidhar Appa Shinde were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No. 30 of 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149, IPC.Vide judgment and order dated 22-7-1986, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused other than Deoppa Ishwar Shinde on all the counts but, convicted and sentenced Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer four years R.I.;(ii) Under Section 324, IPC (No separate sentence was awarded).Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentence, Deoppa Ishwar Shinde has preferred the present appeal.Evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector Uttam Tatya P.W. 10 shows that on 25-7-1985 at 10.45 p.m. the informant Nana Kute came at Sangola police station and he recorded his FIR and registered an offence on its basis.His evidence also shows that at 1.45 a.m. on 26-7-1985, the acquitted accused Ishwar, Rajaram, Ganpat, Uttam and the appellant came in the police station.They had injuries on their person.The appellant lodged an FIR on the basis of which he registered the offence.The evidence of ASI Uttam Tatya shows that he sent the informant-Nana, the appellant and the acquitted accused for medical examination.Evidence of Dr. Ramesh Ukarande P.W. 3 shows that on 26-7-1985, he was working as Medical Officer at Sangola dispensary and at 11 a.m. same day, he medically examined the informant-Nana Kute and found on his person the following injuries:--(i) incised wound 1" x ½" x ¼" on left infra-scapular region;(ii) incised wound 14" x ¼" x 1/8" on lateral aspect of left elbow joint;In his opinion, the said injuries were simple in nature; were attributable to a sharp and hard object, and were approximately 24 hours old.He also opined that injury No. 1 could be caused by a weapon like axe and injury Nos. 2 and 3 by a knife.The evidence of Dr. Ukarande also shows that on 27-7-1985, he medically examined the informant's father Dada and found on his person a contusion, 1" in diameter on left supra orbital region which was simple in nature; attributable to hard and blunt object; and aged about 48 hours old.The evidence of Dr. Ukarande also shows that on 28-7-1985, he examined Ratnu Vithoba Yelpale and found on his person a contusion which was 1" in diameter on anterior aspect of right knee joint, attributable to a hard and blunt object, and caused within 24 hours.Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Ausinath was performed by Mr. Ramesh Ukarande, who found on it the following external1. incised wound ¾" x ½" x 3" just below the left nipple;2. incised wound ¾" x ½" x 2 ½" between 7th and 8th ribs right axillary line;3. contusion ¼" in diameter on left wrist joint dorsal aspect;4. contusion 1" in diameter on right hypochondric region.Fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on right side.On internal examination, he found a incised wound on left side of heart; left lung highly conjested; and haematoma 1" in diameter on lower lobe.In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by a hard and sharp object and injury Nos. 3 and 4 by a hard and blunt object.He also opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2, coupled with injury to heart, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Dr. Ukarande found the following injuries on the body of the said persons:--Appellant-Deoppa Ishwar Shinde:Contusion 2" x ½" (LP) intra scapular region.2. Contusion 2" x ½" (RP) scapular region.C.L.W. x ½" x ¼" near left ear.Acquitted accused-Ganpat Maruti Shinde:Incised wound 2" x ½" x ¼" dorsal aspect, left hand.C.L.W. 1" x ½" x ¼" right parietal region.Contusion 1" diameter Rt.middle forearm fracture.Acquitted accused-Rajaram Ganpat Shinde:C.L.W. ½" x ¼" x 1/8" midforearm' (LT).C.L.W. 1" x ½" x ¼" Lt. parietal region.Acquitted accused Ishwar Maruti Shinde:Contusion 1" on dorsal aspect Lt. hand.Acquitted accused Murlidhar Appa Shinde:C.L.W. 2" x ½" x ¼" central part of skull.The case was investigated in the usual manner.During the course of investigation, a knife was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the presence of public panchas but, we are not adverting to the details about the recovery because, the same in our judgment is not necessary for the decision of this appeal.On completion of investigation, the appellant and the acquitted accused were charge-sheeted.They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.During trial, in all the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.Three of them namely the informant-Nana Kute, Akkatai and Dada Shankar P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.They deposed in respect of the incident in the manner set out by us in para 2 of this judgment.The defence suggestion given to them in their cross-examination was that while the appellant and the acquitted accused Ganpat were going to their house by footpath, Sopan, Ausinath (deceased) and the informant came across the footpath and started beating them with sticks and axes.The appellant and Ganpat raised cries, hearing which the acquitted accused Rajaram, Murlidhar and Ishwar came and they were also assaulted by them.The eye-witnesses of course denied the said suggestion.The learned trial Judge partly believed the prosecution version as unfolded by the aforesaid eye-witnesses: acquitted accused other than the appellant; and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1, above.Hence, this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties; and gone through the entire material on record.As we have mentioned earlier, their injuries were medically examined a little before midnight on 25-7-1985 i.e. the date of incident.In other words, their injuries were examined within five to six hours of the incident taking place.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1 .2018 2 KB CRM No. 6929 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27th August, 2018 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 1054 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 corresponding with G.R. Case No. 2016/2017under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.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 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The Appellants / A.1 and A.2 are acquitted.Further, the Appellants are at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the trial court to claim the refund of Fine of Rs.1,000/- each paid by them in S.C.No.17 of 2014 upon such petition being filed, the trial court shall dispose of the said Petition at an early date, of course in the manner known to Law.The Bail Bond executed by the Appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.02.02.2017Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NossdToThe Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. By The Station House Officer, Thiruvanallar Police Station, KaraikalThe Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Karaikal, PuducherryThe Appellants have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 31.10.2014 in S.C.No.17 of 2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal while passing the Impugned the Judgment in S.C.No.17 of 2014 dated 31.10.2014 at Paragraph No.19 among other things had observed as under:...From the evidence collected in the above case, P.W.1 has not sustained grievous injury but only a simple injury.The other two ingredients are well available in the evidence let in by the prosecution through the witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in this case.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing.Hence this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case that the accused have voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1 and deterred him from discharging his official duty as Public Servant.The accused have not shattered the evidence of the prosecution.The defence taken by the accused that the present case has been falsely registered against them.But they could not say as to why the false case was registered against them either in the cross examination made with the witnesses or at the time of answering the questions framed and put by the court u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The doctor P.W.4 denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused saying that the injury noted by him on P.W.1 could not have been caused by falling and dashing with rough object.This suggestion was also put with P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the accused during cross-examination.In the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 333 IPC r/w 34 IPC .But at the same time, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all the reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC.and resultantly found the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 guilty in respect of an offence under Section 332 read with 34 of IPC and convicted the Appellants/ Accused by sentencing them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year each and further directed them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of said fine amount, they were directed to undergo default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each.The Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that P.W.1 in his evidence had stated that at 7.45 or 8.00 hrs (P.M.) the complaint was received by the police and that since he was in an unconscious stage, he does not know what was written in the complaint (Ex.P.1).Moreover, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he had not mentioned to the Doctor specifically as to who had beaten him.Furthermore, P.W.1 had stated that when he affixed his signature in the complaint (Ex.P.1), he was in semi conscious stage.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants refers to the evidence of Nurse of the Government Hospital to the effect that the complaint was written by the Police Head Constable when Mohan gave the complaint she know about the same and at that time, the said Mohan (P.W.1) was in an unconscious stage and further that only on the basis of the complaint given herself and one Anitha, the complaint was written and she does not remember whether her signature was obtained in the said complaint.In effect, the stand of the Appellants is that there is discrepancies in regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the authorship of the complaint and when P.W.3 had categorically deposed (in his cross examination) that the complaint (Ex.P.1) was written by Head Constable then, the trial court was wrong in ultimately convicting the Appellants / Accused under Section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC by imposing necessary punishment.The Learned Counsel for the Appellants points out before this Court that P.W.5 (Ward Attender) in his evidence (in cross examination) clearly stated that the complaint was written by the Police Man, but he does not know whether the said Police Man was the S.I. Of Police or an Head Constable.Further, the Learned Counsel also proceeds to state that at the time of giving complaint, P.W.5 was not there along with the complainant and therefore, he does not know about the details of the complaint.P.1, Complaint, the Complainant (P.W.1) had affixed his signature.Although Ex.P.1  Complaint was written based on the complaint given by herself and one Anitha and that the complaint was written by the Head constable, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in regard to the writing of Ex.P.1- Complaint do contradict the evidence of P.W.7 (Head constable) who had stated in his cross examination that he does not know who had written the complaint.Further, P.W.7 in his evidence had stated that P.W.1 had submitted a written complaint to him and that P.W.1 was in a conscious state when he gave the complaint and that he was not in an unconscious state.In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.7 (Head constable) runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 (Complainant) and the contradiction between the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 affects the credibility of the prosecution case, in the considered opinion of this Court.The origin of Ex.P.1- Complaint is in simmering doubt in the present case.The contradictions in regard to the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 unerringly point out to the crumbling of the prosecution case.Besides the above, this Court pertinently point out that the charges levelled against the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 by the Respondent / Prosecuting Agency is that on 30.08.2012 at about 20.00 hrs at Community Health Centre, Thenur, Thirunallar voluntarily caused grievous hurt to one Mohan / Complainant, a public servant, in the discharge of his duty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of IPC.16. P.W.4 (Doctor) in his evidence had deposed that on 30.08.2012 when he was on duty, Mohan aged about 30 son of Kasinathan (P.W.1- Complainant) came to his hospital at 7.50 hrs and he examined him and on his examination he found that blood was coming out from his nose and he provided treatment to him and further that he informed who had beat him and the son of Senthamarai residing at Serumavilangai (Nedunkadu main road) beat him and issued Wound Certificate, Ex.P.3 and gave an intimation, Ex.P.4 to Police and he further stated that the injury that had taken place would occur based on the punches with hands.It is the evidence of P.W.4 (in cross-examination) that only after the complainant informing him about the manner of occurrence of injury, he came to know about it and in the wound certificate, first four lines were returned by one Dr.Rekha and later two lines were returned by him and again three lines were returned by one Rekha and in short, the Ex.P.3 was returned by two Doctors.19. P.W.7 in his evidence (in Chief Examination) had stated the Written Complaint (Ex.P.1) was given by P.W.1 (Complainant) and on the basis of that, he came to the police station and registered a case and the printed FIR is Ex.P.6 in Crime No.126 of 2012 under Section 332 r/w 34 of IPC and placed the same for perusal of Sub-Inspector of Police etc.,It is to be pertinently pointed out the 'Burden of Proof' is also on the prosecution.In fact, the accused are presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty.Moreover, the benefit of deficiency as proof would be available to the persons charged.It cannot be forgotten that the same evidence, which is required to be established to prove an offence under Section 332 of IPC is required to be proved to establish an offence under Section 333 of IPC, except with an intent of establishing that the Accused caused 'Simple Hurt', it is to be proved that the accused caused voluntarily 'Grievous Hurt'.Moreover, the term of 'Grievous Hurt' is defined under Section 320 of IPC and 'Voluntarily causing Grievous Hurt' is explained under Section 322 of IPC.Viewed in that perspective, this Court holds that the Respondent / Prosecution had not established its case against the Appellants / A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, this Court to prevent an aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice sets aside the Judgment of the trial court dated 31.10.2014 in S.C.No.17 of 2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.Consequently, the Appeal succeeds.In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The Additional Sessions Court, KaraikalThe Superintendent of Jail , Central Prison, Kalappet, Puducherry.The Record Keeper, High Court, MadrasM.VENUGOPAL,J.,ssdCrl.578 of 201402.02.2017http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. Leave granted.This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh againstjudgment and order dated 6th November, 2012 passed by the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007 reducing thesentence awarded to the respondent under Section 304A of the Indian PenalCode ("IPC") from RI for one year and under Section 337 IPC from RI forthree months to RI for 10 days which was the period already undergone byhim.On 22nd November, 1997, the deceased Sushila Bai wife of PW 4 RamCharan along with her husband was returning from Village Ragho Garh totheir home in village Kudhaidher.The respondent accused had drawnelectricity wire from the pole upto his field which was not visible in thedarkness.Ram Charan got trapped in the wire and became unconscious.Thedeceased Sushila Bai received electric shock in the process of removing thewire.On receiving the information PW 5 Mishrilal, brother of Sushila Baiand PW 1 Kallu reached the site of the incident along with PW 3 Goverdhanand PW 2 Somlal.It was found that Sushila Bai had died while Ram Charanwas injured but alive.He was taken to the hospital.FIR was lodged.Post mortemwas conducted on the dead body and after investigation, the respondentaccused was sent up for trial under Section 304-A/337 IPC.The accuseddenied the allegations and alleged that he was falsely implicated.The prosecution examined PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma to the effect that thedeceased and Ram Charan received injuries by electric current and thatSushila Bai had died due to shock of the current.PW 1 Kallu as well as PW4 Ram Charan clearly deposed that the wire was laid by Mehtaab from thepole to the field which was lying naked and resulted in the death ofSushila Bai.This action clearly amounted to the offence alleged.Thesaid evidence was corroborated by the other witnesses.Accordingly, thetrial Court convicted the respondent-accused under Section 304A and 337 IPCand sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo further RI for one month under Section 304-A and toundergo RI for three months under Section 337 IPC.The conviction andsentence having been upheld by the Court of Session, the respondentpreferred a revision petition before the High Court.Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradeshhas preferred this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.On beingsatisfied on an application or on its own motion, the Court ought to directgrant of interim compensation, subject to final compensation beingdetermined later.Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal casewhere compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespectiveof the application by the victim.At the stage of final hearing it isobligatory on the part of the Court to advert to the provision and record afinding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, ifso, who is entitled to compensation and how much.In default, hewill undergo RI for six months.The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent...........................................J. [T.S. THAKUR] ...........................................J.[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]NEW DELHIFEBRUARY 13, 2015

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

REVN231+232.13.odt 3The complainant Anil Wamanrao Nathine is the Police Constable.On 22.1.2008 at 9.30 pm, he along with Police Constable Ganesh Bondre and Shrawan Thakare went to the mess of Shri Kolhe for dinner.The accused were also came there for dinner.On seeing both the police constables, the accused abused in filthy language and threatened to kill them.So also there was scuffle between informant and accused persons.The complainant therefore lodged complaint against the accused persons.On the basis of the said complaint the offence was registered vide Crime No.3012/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The investigation was conducted.The spot panchanama was prepared.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.The accused were arrested and produced before the court.The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses.The relevant witnesses are the complainant Anil Wamanrao Nathine (PW-2), Gulab Laxmanrao Kolhe (PW-4) and Ganesh Wamanrao Thombre (PW-5).::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 4While they were having dinner, both the accused came to that place.On seeing policemen they uttered "fukatche khaun rahile, thyna haddi taka".The complainant asked the accused to let them have dinner.The accused however abused them in filthy language by saying "tumachya maychi pudi, thmhi yethun nighun ja, tumacha murder karin".The complainant asked them the reason for the abuse.On that the accused persons had a scuffle with the complainant.The testimony of PW-2 Anil shows that he had gone to mess belonging to Kolhe along with Ganesh Bondre and Shrawan at about 9.30 pm.ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1] These Criminal Revision Applications have been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti in Regular Criminal Case No.130/2008, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has convicted the applicants (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for the sake of brevity) for the offence punishable under Section 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506-II read with::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 3 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2] The prosecution case in nutshell is as under :::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti against the accused.The charge was framed against both the accused for the::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 4 offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and after hearing both the sides, convicted the accused as aforesaid.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case.4] The learned advocate for the applicants contended that the learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and has erroneously convicted the present applicants.5] Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that the learned trial Judge has assessed the evidence led by the prosecution::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 5 witnesses in its right perspective and based on their evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 56] In order to substantiate the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be advantageous to go through the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses.According to the complainant (PW-2) Anil Wamanrao Nathine that on 22.01.2008 at 9.30 pm , he along with head constable Ganesh Bondare and Shrawan Thakare went at Kolhe's mess for dinner.They gave order for dinner.They placed order for dinner and while they were having dinner, the accused persons uttered filthy by saying "khana khana aye, inkubi haddi dalo".There was no reason for the accused persons to make any comment on the police personnels while they were::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 6 having their dinner.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 67] The evidence of PW-2 Anil and other two witnesses has not been shattered in the cross-examination on that aspect of accused using abusive language.The presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not disputed seriously.It was suggested to the witness that three police personnels had asked both the accused to pay the bill of the mess on their behalf and as they refused to do so, they have been falsely implicated in this case.All these suggestions have been denied by the witness.When PW-2 Anil asked the accused persons to allow them to have dinner, the accused abused them in filthy language.They uttered 'tumchya maychi pudi, tumhi ithun Nighun Ja, tumacha murder karin".Anil then asked them as to why they were abusing.At that time, Anil was manhandled and therefore lodged complaint vide Exh.24 with the police.8] The evidence of PW-4 Shravan Thakre shows that he accompanied PW-2 Anil to the hotel.While they were having dinner, the accused persons came to that place and said that "sale policewale khana khane aye, inkobhi haddi dalo".In the cross-examination, an improvement is pointed out by the defence that the accused said that::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 ::: REVN231+232.13.odt 7 "sale policewale ashe matle, mar dalunga".The testimony of PW-2 as well as PW-4 shows that there is corroboration in the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 to the effect that the accused persons entered in the hotel where they were having the dinner and at that time the accused said to the complainant and others that "sale policewale khana khane aye inkobhi haddi dalo", so both the accused have abused in abusive words.However, there is no convincing evidence on record with regard to the threats given by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 79] Overall assessment of the evidence shows that the accused persons have abused the complainant in abusive language.The courts below should have assessed the evidence in its proper perspective.The accused have undergone sentence of 15 days.In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the trial Court needs to be modified.Hence, the following order is passed :ORDER 1] Both Criminal Revision Applications are hereby partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::REVN231+232.13.odt 82] The accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period, which they had already undergone.However, both the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 (II) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.JUDGE Gulande::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 17:09:55 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

"The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Sanjay Ex.PW1/A wherein, he has alleged that he resides at the address as mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and he is running a shop of repairing the mobile phone at F-5/133, Sultan Puri, which is situated on the walking distance of two minutes of his house and on 11.12.2015, at CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 1 of 9 about 9.00 PM, he closed his shop and on the intervening night of 11/12.12.2015 at 3.00 AM, owner of his shop had telephonically informed that some noises of breaking were coming out of his shop and the owner of his shop resides at the upper floor of the said shop and this complainant without wasting time had taken his neighbour Sapan with him and arrived at his shop and found that three boys were standing outside of the said shop and they asked to their fourth companion to come out of the said shop and the fourth boy came out from the broken shutter of the said shop and all the four boys ran towards one direction and when, this complainant and his neighbour Sapan tried to apprehend this accused Joshim near Government toilet, this accused took out knife and threatened to kill the complainant and his neighbour, but, anyway, they succeeded in nabbing this accused and on hearing the noise, many people gathered at the spot and this accused, who was apprehended by them, had revealed his name as Joshim, son of Vicky @ Kanatulla R/o F-7/W-49, Jhuggi No. 176, Sultan Puri, Delh and this accused was handed over along with knife recovered from him to police and on searching one mobile phone maker of which Gild of brown colour was recovered from the pocket of his pant and this complainant has also alleged that this mobile phone came to his shop for repairing and also alleged that 25 mobile phones and Rs.20000/- were found to be stolen from the shop of this complainant and all these mobile phones were to be repaired by him and alleged that all the four boys had broken the shutter of his shop and stolen away his 25 mobile phones and Rs.20000/-, and on such complaint FIR No. 1187/2015 was registered under Section 458/360/411/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The disclosure statement of the accused was also written by the IO, wherein, he has disclosed the name of co-accused Deepak S/o Ramesh R/o F-7, W-49, Jhuggi No. 160, Sultan Puri Kwin @ Manwa S/o Om Prakash R/o F-131, Sultan Puri, Kadu R/o Bengali Park, F Block, Sultan Puri.126/2018 Page 1 of 9126/2018 Page 2 of 9To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses in all.Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC by the learned Trial Court wherein he pleaded not guilty and denied all prosecution charges.The respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence.At the outset, I deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution.Landlady of the complainant was examined as PW-5, who deposed as under:-"I made a telephone call on the mobile phone of Mr. Sanjay but he did not take up.Thereafter, I made a call on the mobile phone of Mr. Suresh, brother of Mr. Sanjay.Mr. Suresh picked up and I informed that I heard some noise of shutter of the shop of Mr. Sanjay."Mr. Sanjay Kumar (Complainant) was examined as PW-1 and during his examination-in-chief dated 21.03.2016, he deposed as under: -By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the order/judgment dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), North West District, Rohini Courts, in Sessions Case No. 53084/16, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 458/380/397/411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:-But none of them was apprehended by the police and the CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 2 of 9 IO had filed the charge sheet under Section 458/380/397/411/34 of IPC against this accused Joshim only."Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State contended that the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2017 is based on conjectures and surmises, the same was against the facts and law and the same be set aside, acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 458/380/397/411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgement has failed to appreciate that the respondent was apprehended red handed while committing theft along with his three other accomplices; that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of prosecution witness including that of the complainant which supports the prosecution theory; that the learned Trial court has placed undue weightage on the minor discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to which all the statements are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major omissions and contradictions in the aforesaid testimonies; that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the knife along with the money stolen was recovered from the accused on the spot.126/2018 Page 3 of 9Per contra, Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and the same does not call for any interference by this court.Learned counsel for the state further contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are inconsistent and there are various material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 which go to the root of the prosecution case.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record."On 11.12.2015 at about 9.00 pm I closed my shop and went to my house.During the night of 11.11.2015 and 12.11.2015 at about 3.00 pm a call was received on the mobile phone of my brother that some voices CRL.LP.126/2018 Page 4 of 9 were coming from my shop and probably the shutter of the shop was broken."126/2018 Page 4 of 9Mr. Suresh Kumar, brother of the complainant (PW-1) was examined as PW-6 who deposed that:"In the meantime, I received the call on my mobile phone from Ms. Asha, landlady of the shop of my brother Sanjay.She informed me that she has heard some noise of shutter if the shop of Mr. Sanjay."PW-2 Mr. Sapan Kumar, friend of the complainant, who accompanied the complainant (PW-1) to his shop, deposed as under:-"During the night at about 3 A.M I received a telephone call on my mobile phone from landlady of the shop of my friend Mr. Sanjay........ She further informed that she was making call on the mobile of Mr. Sanjay but the same was reported to be switched off so she made call on my mobile phone.I also tried to contact Sanjay on his mobile phone but the same was reported to be switched off."126/2018 Page 5 of 9 different version with regard to the receipt of the information about the alleged incident.According to PW5 (Landlady) she informed PW-6 (Complainant's Brother) about the alleged incident as PW-1 (Complainant) was not responding to her calls.To the contrary, PW-2 (Complainant's Friend) claimed that PW-5 (Landlady) informed him about the alleged incident.126/2018 Page 5 of 9The case of the prosecution is that 25 mobile phones and Rs. 20,000/-were stolen from the shop of PW-1 (Complainant) and the accused was apprehended at the spot.It is pertinent to note that no such recovery was effected from the accused though he was apprehended at the spot.To add, PW-1 (Complainant) who has a mobile repairing shop, failed to bring any evidence on record to show the names of his customers to whom the phones belonged.Only one phone make - GILD was allegedly recovered from the accused.The prosecution failed to procure the names of the customers to whom the phone belonged.No register or diary barely mentioning the details of the customers to whom the phone belonged was maintained by the complainant.Even vague details were not given by the complainant which creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Ct-34 (AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12/07/2018 in connection with Sainthia P.S. Case No. 146/2018 dated 07/07/2018 under Sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)And In the matter of: Biswajit Kar ....petitioner.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Debajyoti Deb ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Sainthia P.S. Case No. 146/2018 dated 07/07/2018 under Sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)The Investigating Officer has filed a report to the effect that the petitioner has complied with the notice issued under Section 41A of the Code and the petitioner's statement has been recorded.Considering the material on record and the nature of the charges, there may not be any need for the petitioner to be detained in custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also report to 2 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 available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 3

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Sessions Judge, Pilibhit respectively disallowing the prayer to release the Truck U.P.I. 4821 in favour of applicant Gurmez Singh.It is the admitted position in the instant case that the Truck No. U.P.I. 4821, was given to Gurmez Singh applicant on 2-3-1985 on hire-purchase basis-financed by National Finance Company, Civil lines, Station Road, Pilibhit and an agreement was executed between the parties on 2-3-1985, stipulating therein that the applicant Gurmez Singh shall continue to pay regularly 36 monthly instalments each instalment consisting of Rs. 3550/- to the aforesaid Company.In order to perceive as to what had been agreed between the parties in the aforesaid agreement, I would like to place certain significant terms as below.In para 4 of the aforesaid agreement, it was given out that without prejudice to the other rights of the owners under this agreement, the owner may terminate, with or without notice, the hiring of the Motor Vehicle, and forthwith retake and recover possession of the same (a) If any monthly hire, or a part thereof or any other dues, as per terms and conditions of this agreement are in arrears and remain unpaid for a period of seven days after the due date due for the payments for any reason whatsoever.In para 5 of the aforesaid agreement it is stipulated that in the event of the hiring being terminated by the owners on account of breach of any terms and conditions as from 4(a) to 4(i) above and the hirer is called upon to restore possession of the Motor vehicle to the owners, and the hirer fails to give possession of the Motor Vehicle or creates any opposition to its repossession, and thus keeps the Motor vehicle in adverse possession, he shall be liable both, criminally and civilly and pay double the amount of average monthly hire stipulated in this agreement for the period he remains in adverse possession of the Motor vehicle, after the termination of the hiring without any prejudice to the owner's right of repossession.In the light of the above agreement, it crystallises that applicant had himself agreed to the effect that in case of default in any of the instalments, he would be liable to deliver back the truck without any obstructions or hindrance to the owner.I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.I have also carefully perused the counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in the above petition.From a careful reading of the above documents, it surfaces that Daljeet Singh, in the capacity of his being a partner in National finance Company-respondent No. 2 in the instant petition, lodged a report at police station Sungarhi District Pilibhit on 20-11-87 alleging that Gurmez Singh, applicant had surrendered the Truck U.P.I. 4821 out of his free-will to him on 24-5-87 on account of his having failed in paying the instalments in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties and as the aforesaid truck was in a most rickety and worsted condition, it was given for repairs to Balbir Singh, the partner of the aforesaid National Finance Company.The truck was completely renovated and when it was stationed at the partner's shop for being painted at bye-pass road, Gurmez Singh arrived there at about 3-30 p.m. on 20-11-1987 and on the pretext of having a trial of the truck of driving it, he persuaded Balbir Singh to part with the keys of the Vehicle.Thereafter, Gurmez Singh- started the aforesaid truck and sped away.When Gurmez Singh did not return with the truck for sometime, Daljeet Singh searched for the truck and Gurmez Singh but they were nowhere traceable and, consequently, the report aforesaid was lodged at the police station.It also finds mention in the aforesaid report lodged at the police station that considering the aforesaid conduct of Gurmez Singh, he (Daljeet Singh) apprehends that he (Gurmez Singh) had disposed of the truck by cheating him.On receipt of the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. was registered at the police Station Sungarhi District Pilibhit vide Crime No. 247 of 1987, against applicant Gurmez Singh.Thereafter, investigation followed and the aforesaid Truck was found abandoned the same day near Bareilly Road ahead of Jahanabad tri-junction by the Police during the course of investigation and it was taken into possession by the police as case property.During investigation, applicant Gurmez Singh and opp.party Daljeet Singh respondent 2 moved their respective applications under Section 457, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Pilibhit, Seeking the return of the truck to their respective possession.The aforesaid Judicial Magistrate upon a consideration of the submissions advanced by both the parties, directed the interim release of the aforesaid Truck in favour of respondent Daljeet Singh on 28-11-87 by a composite order and the prayer for release of the truck on behalf of Gurmez Singh was disallowed, while releasing the aforesaid truck in favour of Daljeet singh, the learned Magistrate imposed a condition that the truck shall be released to Daljeet Singh subject to his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and an undertaking in the like amount to the effect that he will not dispose of the truck without obtaining prior permission of the court and further on demand by the court, he shall produce the same before the court.On his being unsuccessful in the lower appellate's court as well, the applicant Gurmez Singh preferred this application under Section 482, Cr.Thereafter, the truck was given for repairs to Balbir repairs to Balbir Singh, a partner of the aforesaid National Financing Company.After the truck had been completely repaired and rennovated and while it was stationed at the painter's shop at bye-pass road, applicant Gurmez Singh arrived there at about 3-30 p.m. on 20-11-87 and on the pretext of taking a trial of the vehicle and by taking key from Balbir Singh, another partner of the National financing Company, he sped away the vehicle and when he did not return for quite sometime a search was made and ultimately a report was lodged the same day at Police Station Sungarhi by Daljeet Singh whereupon a case under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. was registered against the applicant.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad Case No. 35 of 2014 arising out of RC No. 120 of 2012 A0003 CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS CBI/ACB, Ghaziabad.The Bank Authority having mis-appropriated the money has falsely implicated the applicant.No criminal liability can be fixed on the applicant.Thus, she is entitled for the relief prayed for.Smt. Renu Saxena, the present applicant, co-accused Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Kanchan executed sale deed dated 29.03.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar-III, Meerut for the property House No. 1237 (half part), Shiv Shakti Nagar, Meerut, in which the co-accused Bhudev Singh was the witness.All the aforesaid accused-persons executed the sale deed in fictitious names.Thus, there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to take cognizance and summon the accused-applicant.There are allegations of criminal conspiracy against the present applicant, for substantive offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in Dr Monica Kumar and another vs State of U.P. and others, 2008 (9) SCALE 166 that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(A) Devprasad Himanshu Sengupta (PW7), firstlywent to Walni Outpost of Khaperkheda Police Station for .....4/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 4narration of incident.However, he was asked to lodge areport.Thereafter, he came to his house and then rang up toKhaperkheda Police Station and informed police aboutcommission of robbery in his house.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(B) The telephonic information was received byAssistant Police Inspector Rajesh Awdumbar Dudhalwar(PW20) and accordingly he went to spot of incident.He wentto house of Smt.Shampa (PW2) (wife of Devprasad) andrecorded report of Smt.Her oral report is at Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 5Smt.Shampa recites that on 24.4.2002 at about 1:15 O'clock inthe noon, her husband Devprasad (PW7) went to village Binafor attending a marriage and in the house she, her mother-in-law Smt.Rama, and her two daughters, Jiya aged 12 years andBulbul aged 9 years, were present.Front door of her house(quarter) was latched from inside.At 1:40 O'clock in thenoon, 3 persons entered the house by pushing the front door.At that time, Smt.Shampa had taken her bath and stepped outof bathroom.Those 3 persons were looking for something in3 different rooms.When she made enquiry as to how theyentered the house and what they are looking for, at that timea person, wearing a navy blue coloured full sleeves shirt andfaded blue coloured jeans and who was of dark complexion,short heighted and slim and having beard and whose hairwere combed backward, inserted revolver in her mouth andthey took her to bedroom where Television Set was kept andasked her to give cash, gold and silver available in the houseby threatening to kill all the persons present in the house.The .....6/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 6oral report further recites that she told them that she was nothaving locker keys as doctor (her husband) had taken thesame with him.Thereupon, they snatched gold ornamentsfrom her person.One person remained with her and twopersons took search of the bedroom in which the TelevisionSet was kept.That time, she took out cash from almirahamounting to Rs.600/- and gave the said to them.Thereafter,they extended threats to kill her two children and under thefear she showed keys of almirah and, thereafter, they openedthe almirah and looted various articles.It is also stated in theoral report that out of those 3 persons, one was of 6 feet tall,fair complexion, and aged about 27 years; another was of darkcomplexion and short having grown up beard; and third wasshort and whose age must be 26 years.All of them weretalking in hindi language and they were in her house till 2:00O'clock in the noon.Dr. AshokMadhavrao Ganjare (PW1) is one of panchas.He went to his house, collected photographs from hishouse, and showed the said photographs to Smt.Shampa(PW2).Thereupon, Smt.Shampa pointed out the accused inthe photograph as one of intruders.On 26.4.2002, theInvestigating Officer got information that Shambabu had goneto his village Bhawara, District Hamirpur (U.P.).Therefore,he went to the village Bhawara.However, Shambabu was notpresent there.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::On 25.5.2002, he came to know that both theaccused are arrested by Jaripatka Police Station.Accordingly,he arrested the accused.By the impugned judgment and order ofconviction, the appellants in these appeals are convicted foroffence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and topay a fine of rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fineamount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 3::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In this judgment, the appellants will be referred toby their original positions in charge.Accused No.1 Shambabu, is represented by learnedsenior counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar along with Advocates ShriC.R.Thakur and Rishabh Khemuka.Facts giving rise to the present appeals canconveniently be stated as under:The crime wasregistered against 3 unknown persons.(C) The oral report (Exhibit 12) lodged by .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(D) Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar .....7/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 7(PW20) prepared spot panchnama (Exhibit 10).He seized motorcycle of Shambabu,accused No.1 under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 39).During Police Custody Remand, Shambabu gave .....8/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 8his disclosure statement that he sold the ornaments at Agra.Accordingly, he was taken by the Investigating Officer to Agra.Shambabu led the police party to a Goel Jewellers atSultanpura where Puranchand Vithalal Agrawal (PW12) waspresent.Those gold bars were seizedin presence of panchas under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 30).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shambabu, accused No.1 also led the police partyto Ramdas Jewellers where Ramdas Mulchand Agrawal(PW13) was present.From his shop also, gold bars wereseized under seizure panchnama (Exhibit 32).(E) Rajjan, accused No.2, gave discovery statementpertaining to fact that where he concealed the revolver.Theadmissible portion is at Exhibit 49 and Exhibit 50 is recoverypanchnama.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 9 (F) After completion of other usual investigation,Investigation Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) filed finalreport in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(G) Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate in whoseCourt the final report in Crime No.44/2002 was filed waspertaining to offences under Section 392 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of theArms Act, 1959, found that the offences are exclusively Triableby the Court of Sessions.Till filing of the chargesheet and committal, thirdunknown accused was not traced.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 10 (H) In order to bring home the guilt of the accusedpersons, the prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and alsorelied on various documents duly proved during course of theTrial.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(I) After appreciation of the prosecution case,learned Judge of the Court below acquitted both the accusedof offences under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code andunder Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, however,convicted them for offence under Section 392 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, this appeal.Shampa (PW2) and her husband .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(i) Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at (1982) 1 SCC 700;(ii) Mohd.Abdul Hafeez vs. Sate of Andhra Pradesh, reported at AIR 1983 SC 367; andAlso, he relied on the procedure for holdingidentification parades, as mentioned in the Criminal Manual.He submitted that though the prosecution proved that theretook the robbery in the house of Smt.Shampa (PW2), the .....12/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 12prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that theappellants are the culprits.He, therefore, prayed for upsettingthe judgment recording the conviction against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga for the appellant inCriminal Appeal No.413 of 2004 adopted the submissionsmade by learned senior counsel.He submitted that he has noother submission.Per contra, learned Additional Public ProsecutorShri M.K.Pathan for the respondent/State vehementlysubmitted that evidence of Smt.Shampa (PW2) and evidenceof Devprasad (PW7) shows that in Test Identification Paradethey identified both the accused.It is his submission that inaddition to identification by these two prosecution witnessesin the Test Identification Parade, even during the course of theTrial, they identified as persons who committed the crime intheir house.It is his submission that since both the accusedare identified during the course of the Trial, which is a .....13/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 13substantive piece of evidence, the said is sufficient to upholdthe impugned judgment.In additionto the said, it is his submission that there is a corroboration inthe nature of seizure of the gold from Jewellers PuranchandAgrawal (PW12) and Ramdas Agrawal (PW13) who alsoidentified both the accused as persons who sold the gold tothem.He, therefore, submitted that the appeals be dismissed.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::At the outset, I would like to mention that thoughboth the accused were charged for offences under 397 of theIndian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the ArmsAct 1959 and they were acquitted by learned Judge of theCourt below of the said charge.The prosecution accepted theverdict of the Trial Court to that extent by not preferring any .....14/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 14appeal.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Therefore, this Court is required to answer aquestion posed to it as to whether the prosecution proved theguilt of the accused for offence under Section 392 of theIndian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.Though the prosecution examined in all 20witnesses, all panch witnesses turned hostile.Also, RafiqAhmad Abdul Rehman (PW8), who runs a Chicken Centre atWalni, who was examined by the prosecution to fix thepresence of the accused persons at the relevant time of thecommission of the offence in the vicinity of the spot of theincident, has turned hostile.Similarly, Macchindra RupchandShelare (PW18), who was examined by the prosecution toshow that he was driver of vehicle who took Shambabu,accused No.1 to Dongargadh, has also failed to support theprosecution case.The law regarding appreciation of witnesses, who .....15/-However, to supportthe prosecution case even the law laid down in the said casecannot be applied since there is nothing in evidence of the saidhostile witnesses by which one could state that to a slightestextent they supported the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::The prosecution also examined Dr.SomshubhraUpresh Gupta (PW3).His evidence is also not relevant fordeciding the present appeals since his evidence shows that hekept his gold ornaments in the house of Smt.Shampa (PW2)which were also looted away.A Jeweller Ashokkumar Khemrajji Daga (PW14)from Dongargadh is concerned, learned Judge of the Courtbelow himself recorded a finding that the prosecution failed toestablish that Shambabu, accused No.1 sold the goldornaments to him.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 16::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::After keeping aside the evidence of hostilewitnesses Rafiq Ahmad (PW8) and Macchindra Shelare(PW18) and evidence of Dr.Somshubhra Gupta (PW3) andjeweller Ashokkumar Daga (PW14), the Court is required toevaluate and scan evidence of following witnesses to record itsfinding and they are:1] Smt.Shampa Devprasad Sengupta (PW2);2] Devprasad Sengupta (PW7) husband of Smt.Shampa(PW2); 3] Arundhati alias Jiya Devprasad Sengupta (PW10);4] Puranchand Vithalal Agrawal (PW12); 5] RamdasMulchand Agrawal (PW13); 6] Naib Tahsildar PrakashRamrao Mahajan (PW17), and of course Investigating OfficerRajesh Awdumbar Dudhalwar (PW20).Devprasad (PW7), was not present in the housewhen the incident took place.According to the prosecution,he noticed presence of Shambabu, accused No.1 in proximityof the actual incident of robbery in the vicinity of the spot of .....17/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 17the incident.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shampa (PW2) and her daughter Arundhati(PW10) were present in the house at the time of occurrence ofthe incident.Puranchand Agrawal (PW12) and RamdasAgrawal (PW13) are owners of jeweller's shops situated atAgra and according to the prosecution, the looted propertywas sold to them.Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17)conducted Test Identification Parade.ABOUT TEST IDENTIFICATIONAdmittedly, neither Smt.Shampa (PW2);Devprasad (PW7) husband of Smt.Shampa (PW2); Arundhati(PW10); Puranchand (PW12) nor Ramdas (PW13) wereknowing any of the accused prior to time when they came incontact with them at different point of time.From the evidence of Investigating Officer RajeshDudhalwar (PW20), it is clear that from the descriptions given .....18/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 18by Smt.Shampa (PW2) he zeroed down his suspicion onShambabu, accused No.1 and accordingly he went to hishouse and collected the photographs from his house.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In order to ascertain identity of the accusedpersons, after they were arrested on 25.5.2002, theInvestigating Officer gave a requisition (Exhibit 42) to TalukaMagistrate for holding and conducting Test IdentificationParade and accordingly the Test Identification Parade washeld by Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17) at tahsiloffice at Saoner and per the prosecution, both Smt.Shampa(PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) identified both the accused.TheTest Identification Parade memorandum Part-I is at Exhibit 13.Whereas, Test Identification Parade memorandum Part-II is atExhibit 13-A.Learned senior counsel stepped up a very seriouschallenge not only to the procedure adopted by Naib TahsildarPrakash Mahajan (PW17) but also authenticity of the Test .....19/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 19Identification Parade itself.According to him, if the record ofthe case is properly examined in its correct perspective, thereis a serious doubt as to whether really on 25.5.2002 the TestIdentification Parade was held.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Exhibit 13 shows that on 25.5.2002 at 2:40 in thenoon, Test Identification Parade (Part-1) was held in the Courtof Tahsildar, Tahsil Office at Saoner, in which Smt.Shampa(PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) identified both the accused.Exhibit 13-A, the Test Identification Parade, showsthat Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17) completedentire procedure including writing of memorandum (Part-II)on 25.5.2002 at 4:00 O'clock in the noon.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 20::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In the backdrop, holding of the Test IdentificationParades by two witnesses, my attention was drawn to Exhibit42 and remand papers.Exhibit 42 is a requisition given by InvestigatingOfficer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) to Taluka Magistrate,Taluka Office, Saoner on 25.5.2002 for holding TestIdentification Parade of the accused persons in CrimeNo.44/2002 registered at Khaperkheda Police Station.Thesaid requisition shows that the Test Identification Parade isrequired to be held for identification of the accused bySmt.Shampa (PW2).The said requisition also recites that on25.5.2002 at 00:30 hours the accused persons are arrested inthe crime.From Exhibit 42, it is clear that InvestigatingOfficer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) was intending that TestIdentification Parade should be through witness Smt.Shampa(PW2) alone since name of Devprasad (PW7) is not finding .....21/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 21place in the said document.The prosecution has not filed anydocument on record to show that prior to holding of the TestIdentification Parade any summons was given to Devprasadthat he should remain present in the tahsil office at Saoner foridentification purpose.Therefore, his presence for thepurpose of the Test Identification Parade in the tahsil office atSaoner itself creates a doubt.It is altogether different that hemay accompany his wife Smt.Shampa to the tahsil office atSaoner but there was no occasion for Naib Tahsildar PrakashMahajan (PW17) to ask him to identify the culprits who werestanding with dummies.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Perusal of the record creates a very serious doubtas to really the Test Identification Parade was held at tahsiloffice at Saoner on 25.5.2002 between 2:40 O'clock in thenoon and 4:00 O'clock in the noon.File-D of the record consist of remand papers alongwith vakalatnamas, various applications for bail papers, .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 22summons warrant, and misc.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::By the said, Investigating Officer RajeshDudhalwar (PW20) sought police custody remand.One of reasons in the said remandpaper for claiming the police custody remand is at item No.7and it recites as under:"vkjksihaph vksG[k ijsM d#u ?ks.ks vkgs- rlsp ?kVukLFkGkoj xqUgk dsY;kps uarj iksyhlkauk cksVkps Bls feGkys vkgs R;kdfjrk vkjksihrkaps cksVkps Bls ?ksowu rikl.kh dj.ks vkgs-"For the Test Identification Parade, identification ofthe accused and also for obtaining finger prints for comparingthe same with the finger prints found at the spot of theoccurrence, learned Magistrate passed an order on 25.5.2002 .....It would bevery useful to reproduce the remand order by learnedMagistrate and the said is reproduced herein under:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::"O Accused produced before me on 25.5.2002 at 4:15 p.m. (emphasis is supplied).No complaint.I.O. present.Case diary seen. ............"From the order, it is clear that the accused personswere produced before learned Magistrate for claiming theirpolice custody remand at 4:15 p.m. and one of reasons for thepolice custody remand was for holding Test IdentificationParade.If that be so, no explanation is coming on recordfrom the prosecution side as to how documents Exhibits 13and 13-A recite time as 2:40 in noon and 4:00 in the noon.The aforesaid creates a doubt in the mind as toreally the prosecution conducted the Test IdentificationParade, as stated in documents Exhibits 13 and 13-A.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 24::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::On 25.5.2002, at 00:30 hours, the accused werearrested in a cognizable office.In the present case, in connection with thecommission of the cognizable offence, the Investigating Officerdetained the accused persons after arresting them at 00:30hours.Therefore, it was well within the right of theInvestigating Officer to do all investigations within 24 hours ofthe arrest of the accused persons and if the InvestigatingOfficer was of opinion that it would be impossible to complete .....25/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 25the investigating without the presence of the accused persons,for authorization of their detention, the Investigating Officerwas bound to move before learned Magistrate for extension ofperiod as envisaged under Section 57 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::How to conduct investigation, is a sole prerogativeof the Investigating Officer.In his wisdom, he can take allnecessary steps for fruitful investigation.One of such stepscould be holding of Test Identification Parade.Documents Exhibits 13 and 13-A show that thesaid was done between 2:40 in the noon and 4:00 O'clock inthe noon.Thus, well within first 24 hours of the arrest of theaccused persons, the said part of investigation was done by theInvestigating Officer.In that view of the matter since the TestIdentification Parade was already over, there was no reasonfor the Investigating Officer to claim police custody remand .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 26for the reason of holding the Test Identification Parade.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In this case, it is also to be seen that whether theTest Identification Parade was held properly and how muchweightage should be given to it.The Test Identification Parade was conducted byNaib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17).In this context, clauses 7 and 21 of the saidCriminal Manual under the head procedure for holding Test .....27/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 27Identification Parades are relevant and those are reproducedherein under:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::"(vii) After the parade is arranged, one of the two respectable persons should be sent up to bring the accused from the lock-up.Care should be taken to see that when the accused is being brought from the lock up, the identifying witnesses do not have an opportunity of seeing him.They should be kept in quite a different room, out of sight of the lock-up.(xxi) The most important part of the memorandum will be the statements made by the identifying witnesses.These should be very carefully recorded, alongwith the questions asked to the identifying witnesses.(This recording need not be in the question and answer form).For example, an identifying witness may be asked if he is able to identify any one in the parade as the persons who fired the shot, and the identifying witness may point out the accused and may add that it was not the accused who actually fired, but that the accused was standing by the side of the man who had fired the shot.In that case, whatever the identifying witness states, should be carefully noted, as far as possible in his words (translated into English)."::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 28In the above context, the Court will have toscrutinize evidence of Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan(PW17) who conducted the Test Identification Parade.Hisevidence shows that after receipt of requisition (Exhibit 42),he directed the police to arrange more than 12 dummycandidates.He called two panchas.He asked both theaccused persons to stand amongst the dummy candidates asper their wish.As per clause 7 of the Criminal Manual, beforeIdentification Parade, identifying witnesses should not have anopportunity to see accused person.In this context, it would be useful to noticeevidence of Devprasad (PW7).He stated on oath that afterabout one month of the incident, he was called in SaonerTahsil for identification and he and his wife sat in the corridor,meaning thereby that they were not sitting in room.Noevidence is brought on record by the prosecution which clears .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 29a doubt regarding not having an opportunity to them to seethe accused persons when these two prosecution witnesseswere sitting in the corridor.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In addition to that, Naib Tahsildar PrakashMahajan (PW17), who conducted the Test IdentificationParade, candidly stated that when the accused persons werebrought to the Tahsil Office, that time the faces of the accusedpersons were not masked.On the contrary, he stated thatthey were uncovered.Further, Smt.Shampa (PW2) was already shown photographsof Shambabu, accused No.1 by the Investigating Officer duringthe course of the investigation.Evidence of Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan(PW17) shows that he has not followed clause No.21 of the .....30/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 30Criminal Manual inasmuch as after holding of the TestIdentification Parade, he has not recorded statements ofSmt.Shampa (PW2) and Devprasad (PW7).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Thus, from the aforesaid, insofar as TestIdentification Parade is concerned, following things emerge:(i) by giving requisition (Exhibit 42), the Investigating Officer asked to hold Test Identification Parade for identifying the accused by Smt.Shampa (PW2) alone;(ii) there is no document available on record to show that Devprasad (PW7) was asked to attend Saoner Tahsil Office for identifying the accused persons in the Test Identification Parade;(iii) in addition to that, Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar (PW20) is silent that even he orally directed Devprasad (PW7) that his presence .....31/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 31 is required at Saoner Tahsil Office to facilitate the Test Identification Parade;(iv) Smt.Shampa (PW2) and Devprasad (PW7) were sitting in corridor and there is no evidence that there was no opportunity for them to see the accused persons before they were taking inside the room where the Test Identification Parade took place;(v) when the accused persons were brought to Saoner Tahsil Office for their identification, at that time they were unmasked and their faces were uncovered;(vi) after completion of the Test Identification Parade, statements of the witnesses were not recorded by Naib Tahsildar Prakash Mahajan (PW17); and .....32/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 32::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(vii) Smt.In Hasib vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283, this Court observed that a vital factor for determining the value of an identification parade is the effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for holding them against the identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the .....33/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Shampa (PW2)and Devprasad (PW7) on the point of identification in theCourt.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 36 Smt.Shampa (PW2), after identifying the accusedpersons, states that Shambabu, accused No.1 was holding arevolver.In the oral report (Exhibit 12), she narrated asunder:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::".............. a person wearing navy blue coloured full sleeves shirt and faded blue coloured jeans and who was of dark complexion, short heighted and slim and having beard and combed his hair backward inserted his revolver into my mouth."Thus, in the First Information Report it wasspecifically reported by the first informant that person havingdark complexion was holding a gun in his hand and he wasshort heighted person.However, in cross-examination, sheagreed Shambabu is having fair complexion.In any case, she did not state Shambabu is havingblack complexion when she identified him in the Court.Further, from evidence of Devprasad (PW7) it isbrought on record that height of Shambabu is about 5' feet 10"::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 37inches.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Therefore, in any case, Shambabu, accused No.1cannot be termed as a person having short height as claimedin the First Information Report.In the First Information Report or even from hersubstantive evidence, Smt.Shampa (PW2) never claims thatshe was able to identify the accused persons because of somespecial characteristics noticed on the persons of the accused.In that view of the matter, when there is varianceof the description of Shambabu, accused No.1 in the FirstInformation Report and from the witness box, it would be veryhazardous on the part of the Court to record a finding that in .....38/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 38this circumstance the Court is bound to give sanctity for theidentification of the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Similar is the case in respect of Devprasad (PW7) isconcerned.It is true that Arundhati (PW10) identified theaccused persons.According to the prosecution, the said girl waspresent at the time of the incident.She was at the time of theincident aged about 12 years.Though she was witnessed to thecrime, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, during thecourse of the investigation, in the Test Identification Parade, thesaid witness was not produced by the prosecution to identify theaccused persons.There is one more reason for not accepting theevidence of Smt.Shampa (PW2) and Arundhati (PW10).According to these two witnesses, the main door of the housewas latched from inside.It is not brought on record that except .....39/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 39that door there exists any other way for entry in the house.None of these two witnesses claims that they opened the door.The spot panchnama (Exhibit 10) does not show any signs thatthe door was broke open.In this backdrop, suggestion given tothese two witnesses that they were not present in the house atthe time of the incident assumes importance and their presenceitself comes under cloud.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Abdul Hafeez vs.Puranchandand Ramdas are owners of jeweller's shops situated at Agra.According to the prosecution, when Shambabu, accused No.1 .....40/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 40was in police custody remand, on 28.5.2002 he gave hisdisclosure statement to the effect that he sold gold ornaments atAgra and, therefore, Investigating Officer Rajesh Dudhalwar(PW20) along with Shambabu and other staff members went toAgra.At the Agra, Shambabu led the police party to GoelJewellers wherein Puranchand was present.As per the evidenceof the Investigating Officer, Puranchand told him that hepurchased the gold ornaments from Shambabu, melted thoseornaments, prepared gold strips, and produced that gold barsbefore him and he seized those gold bars under seizurepanchnama (Exhibit 30).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Similarly, as per the evidence of the InvestigatingOfficer, Shambabu led the police party to the shop of RamdasAgrawal (PW13).He came to know from Ramdas that hepurchased the gold ornaments from Shambabu, accused No.1and, thereafter, he melted the same and prepared gold barswhich were seized from him under seizure panchnama (Exhibit .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 41::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::32).Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted thatthe seizure of the gold-bars from the shops of the aforesaid twoprosecution witnesses and they identifying Shambabu, accusedNo.1 in the Court the person from whom they purchased thegold-bars is a corroborative piece of evidence.I find myself unable to agree with the submission oflearned Additional Public Prosecutor.If evidence of PuranchandAgrawal (PW12) and Ramdas Agrawal (PW13) are perused,evidence of Puranchand shows that about 1½ year back one ladyand three men had come to his shop and those persons wantedto sell gold ornaments to him.However, he was not ready topurchase those gold ornaments.One of men told him that allthe articles belong to him were stolen away and there is amarriage of his sister and due to that he wanted to sell theornaments.Evidence of Puranchand further reveals that sincehe was not ready to purchase the ornaments, they went away.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 42After one hour, all of them came to his shop and they broughtmelted piece of the gold weighting 31 grams which he purchasedat the price of Rs.17,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::Insofar as Ramdas (PW13) is concerned, hisevidence also shows that Rajjan, accused No.2 along with twoother came to his shop and told him that he wanted to sellornaments of his wife.However, he shows reluctance topurchase the ornaments.Thereafter, he asked him firstly to meltthe ornaments, bring pure gold, and then only he will purchasethe same.After, half an hour, Rajjan again came to his shop.Atthat time, it was weighing 40 grams.He purchased that the saidgold at price of Rs.21,000/- from Rajjan.From the evidence of these two prosecutionwitnesses, it is clear that they are giving altogether differentnarrations as to how the gold strips came in their possession.Asper the evidence of Investigating Officer Rajesh (PW20), whenhe visited their shops and seized the gold bars, at that time it .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 43was narrated by these prosecution witnesses that they purchasedthe gold ornaments and then melted and converted it into thegold bars.However, in the Court they are deposing exactly theopposite.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::In any case, the Investigating Officer was knowingthat the gold seized from these two prosecution witnesses wasstolen property in its original state.Therefore, it was very clearthat these two persons were receiver of the stolen propertywhich is punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.However, these two persons were not booked for the saidoffence by the Investigating Officer.It is altogether differentthat whether the prosecution would have been successful inproving their guilt for the offence under Section 411 of theIndian Penal Code.However, they were not booked for the saidoffence.The said shows that the Investigating Officer showedsome leniency in their favour by not registering the offenceagainst them which clearly brings them under the thumb and .....44/-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 44dictate of the Investigating Officer.Therefore this Court is notready to attach any importance to the identification of theaccused persons by these two prosecution witnesses in the Courthall.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::As noticed in the earlier part of this commonjudgment that in the first remand paper the Investigating officerclaimed police custody of the accused persons for obtaining theirfingers' prints because according to the said remand paperfingers' prints were found on the spot at the time of theinvestigation.When the police custody remand was granted, theInvestigating Officer must have taken all steps for obtaining theirfingers' prints for comparing the fingers' prints taken from thespot of the incident.However, the prosecution case is totallysilent about the said aspect.Therefore, that circumstance, in myconsidered view, goes in favour of the accused persons.The re-appreciation and the reevaluation of theentire prosecution case and conspectus of all the aforesaid .....::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 ::: Judgment apeals204 & 413.04 13 45discussions made in this common judgment leads me to passfollowing order:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::(i) The criminal appeals are allowed.(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 24.3.2004passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur inSessions Trial No.572/2002 is hereby quashed and set aside.(iii) Both appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section392 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The appellants are on bail.Their Bail Bonds standcancelled.JUDGE!! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 12:15:32 :::

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The deceased Disco alias Sukumari, a girl aged 5 yearswas the daughter of P. Ws 1 and 6, the father and the motherwho were drummers by castes.They belong to villageBadachatra, an interior part of Mayurbhanj District.Theyhad three children and the deceased was the eldest.He named their newly borndaughter.He took his meals in their house and went awaysaying that he would come with the new dresses for thenewly born daughter.Next day i.e. on 9.11.88 he came totheir house in the morning with new dresses.He told theparents that he would take the deceased with him to BombayChhak to get new dresses for the other two children.He tookhis lunch and went with deceased towards Bombay Chhak.Sometime after his departure P.W 6 told her husband P.W.1 toproceed to Bombay Chhak as the deceased might be crying.Accordingly P.W. 1 accompanied by one Sambhu proceededtowards that Chhak.On the way they met one Babuli and askedhim whether he had seen the accused and the deceased towhich he replied in the negative.P.W. 1 came back to thevillage and sat in the shop of P.W. 2 who informed that hehad seen the accused going towards village Tulsibanialongwith the deceased.P.W. 1 and Sambhu then went to thatvillage but could not find them there.Therefore they wentto Jharpokharia Police Station and gave a report to theOfficer-in-charge P.W.11 stating that the deceased.P.W. 1again went to the Tulshibani Village where a person informedhim that he has seen the accused going towards his house.P.W. 1 went there and enquired the accused.He told P.W. 1that the deceased had gone back home but P.W. 1, caughthold of him but the accused squirmed away from his grip.P.W. 1, however, again caught him and took him to hisVillage and according to P.W. 1 302on being questioned the accused confessed to have raped andcommitted murder of the deceased.The accused is alleged tohave pointed the place where he had thrown the dead body,whereafter P.W. 1 and others proceeded in that direction.P.W. 11 the Police Officer also came in a jeep and took theaccused into custody, drew up F.I.R. and sent the same tothe Police Station for registration of a case.The accusedis alleged to have led the Police party to the spot wherethe dead body was lying.P.W. 11 found the deceased lyingwith injuries on her vagina and other parts.He held theinquest in the presence of P.W. 4 and others and sent thedead body for post-mortem.P.W. 7 conducted the post-mortem.A girl aged five years was a victim of rape andthereafter murder.The sole appellant before us was tried,convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court andconfirmed by the High Court.He noticed abrasions all over the body.He alsofound one bruise on the left side of the forehead and alacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep starting fromthe posterior angle of vagina along the perinium upto theanus.On internal examination he found the followinginjuries."(1) Soft tissues and muscles below the external injuries to the neck were contused with extra- vassation of blood into the soft tissues.(3) The hymen was torn and the floor of the vagina i.e., vaginal channel was lacerated.This injury corresponds to external injury No. 15."The Doctor opined that all the injuries were antemortemand homicidal in nature and cause of death was due toasphyxia and shock as a result of strangulation and also dueto injuries to the vagina.He also opined that the injurieson the neck suggest that the deceased was strangulated bypressure of hands.So far injury to the vagina is concerned,he was of the opinion that the same could have been causedby forcible penetration of a male organ.The accused alsowas examined on 10.11.88 itself by another Doctor P.W 8 forsome abrasions on his genital.P.W. 8, however,categorically stated that on examining the accused he couldnot find any recent sign of sexual intercourse.Theprosecution relied on some blood stains which were found onhis dhoti but the accused explained away by saying that theywere caused by the bleeding of his gums.The accused whenexamined under Section 313 pleaded not guilty.He however,admitted that he went to the house of P.W. 1 but denied therest of the case.The trial court did not accept the P.W. 1, s evidenceregarding the extra-judicial confession alleged to havebeen made by the accused.It held that nobody else hasmentioned about this extrajudicial confession and at anyrate it was supposed to have been made in the presence ofthe police.We have also examined the evidence of P.W. 1 aswell as the evidence of the other witnesses.The trial courthas rightly rejected this part of the prosecution caseregarding the alleged extra-judicial confession.P.W. 6, who is no other than the wifeof P.W. 1, did not even mention about it.The trial court, however, relying on the othercircumstances convicted the accused under Sections 302 and376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death subject toconfirmation by the High Court and for seven years' rigorousimprisonment for the offence of rape.The sentences aredirected to run concurrently.The High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.(d) Recovery of the dead body of the deceased on the showing of the accused-That the accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying inside a paddy field;(e) Presence of injury on the genital as well as stains of blood on the wearing apparel and nailclippings of the accused."The evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 6 are relied upon insupport of the first circumstance namely that the deceasedwas last seen in the company of the accused.P.W. 1 thefather and P.W. 6 the mother deposed that on the day ofoccurrence the accused came to their house and took thedeceased towards Bombay Chhak to purchase new clothes.Theaccused only admitted to the extent namely that he had beento their house and denied the rest of the prosecution case.However, we shall accept the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6 to theeffect that the accused took the deceased on that day toBombay Chhak.Even otherwise the distance between the two villages is notmuch.P.W. 2 isalso a native of the same village to which P.Ws 1 and 6belong.He deposed that on a Wednesday he had been tovillage pond to take his bath at about 12 noon and whilereturning she saw the accused going towards east with aminor girl aged about 5 years but P.W. 2 does not say thatthe deceased was in his company.He, however, proceeded todepose that he found P.W. 1 searching for some one andthereupon P.W. 2 told him that he has seen the accused witha minor girl going towards the paddy field.He admitted thatdid not know whose daughter was in the company of theaccused.In the cross-examination he further admitted that he did not talk to theaccused.No. doubt P.W. 2's evidence, to some extent,corroborates the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 6 but unfortunatelyeven at the stage of inquest this circumstance namely thatthe deceased was last seen in the company of the accused,was not noted.We will advert to this aspect at a laterstage.The important and crucial circumstance heavilyrelied upon by the prosecution is the alleged recovery ofthe dead body of the deceased on showing of the accused andthe accused pointed the place where the body of the deceasedwas lying.Having carefully gone throughthe evidence of P.W. 1 we find that he has improved hisversion from stage to stage.As already noted both thecourts below were not prepared to place any reliance on hisevidence regarding the extra-judicial confession about whichhe made no mention at any earlier stage.As far as therecovery of the body is concerned, P.W. 1 however deposedthat he managed to catch hold of the accused and brought himto the village and that the police came in a jeep and tookthe accused into custody.Then all of them went towardspaddy field which had been pointed by the accused and onsearch they found the dead body.P.W. 11 the InvestigatingOfficer deposed at he went to village and found the accusedto have been detained.He therefor prepared the F.R.I. andsent the same for registration of the crime.Then hearrested the accused and his evidence and his evidencethereafter to put in his own words reads as under: "The accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and thereafter led me to the paddy field wherefrom I could recover the dead body of the deceased Disco.As there were good number of persons present apprehending danger to the accused I sent him to the police station.During course of investigation, I examined witnesses, seized the dhoti (M.O. iii),Shirt (M.O.The dead body of the deceased was lying in the paddy field where there were paddy plants which had been damaged and scattered.According to this evidence the accused is alleged tohave taken P.W. 11 and others to the open paddy field wherethe dead body was lying.It is only thereafter that theinquest report was drawn up.However, P.W. 11 stated in hisevidence that before going to the paddy field the F.I.R. Ex.P. 10 was drawn up by him.P.W. 6does not say anything about this aspect.As a matter of factthe trial court has noted the discrepancies in the evidenceof P.Ws 1 and 11 and it is observed as under:"The Investigating Officer, P.W. 11 has stated something more about the find of the dead body.He speaks that the accused pointed out the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and thereafter led him to the paddy field wherefrom the dead body of the deceased could be recovered.Though this part of this evidence has not been supported by P.W. 1,but from the evidence of both P.Ws 1 and 11 coupled with the evidence of P.W.4 I am persuaded to hold that on the showing of the accused, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a paddy field."His evidencedoes not in any manner incriminate the accused.P.W. 4deposed that the dead body of the deceased was found lyingin paddy field and that the police held inquest over thedead body in his presence and that the inquest report is P.1 in which he put his signature as a witness.Nothing moreis stated by him.He does not even refer to the presence ofthe accused at the place where the dead body was found or atthe time of inquest, which was held also there.If ready the body has beendiscovered at the instance of the accused there should havebeen discovered at the instance of the accused there shouldhave been a panchanama and a mention about the same in theinquest report.P.W. 11 categorically in his evidence hasstated that after sending the F.I.R. the accused wasquestioned and the body was discovered there-after at the instance of the accused and the inquest washeld over the dead body and P.W. 4 was a panch witness tothe inquest and he also affixed his signature in the inquestreport.But as mentioned above P.W. 4 does not say anythingabout the accused being present anywhere near the placewhere the dead body was found nor there is a reference tothe accused in the inquest report.The only two remainingwitnesses P.Ws 1 and 11 namely the father of the girl andthe Investigating Officer respectively have contradictedeach other.That is the type of evidence regarding thiscrucial circumstance.It is highly dangerous to accept thesame and hold that the dead body was discovered at theinstance of the accused.On the other hand there is any amount of doubtand suspicion about the accused having shown the place ofoccurrence.We may also point out at this stage that thecircumstance that the deceased was last seen in the companyof the accused was not mentioned in the inquest report.Therefore the first circumstance also namely that thedeceased was last seen in the company of the accused is notestablished beyond reasonable doubt.However, when once itis held that the crucial circumstance namely the discoveryof the body at the instance of the accused is notestablished, then the other circumstances are hardlysufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.The courtsbelow have also observed that the accused gave a falseexplanation.According to the prosecution case the accusedis supposed to have stated to P.Ws 1 and 6 that he sent awaythe deceased in a truck.The courts below held that thisexplanation is false mainly on the surmise that a minorgirl could not have come back on her own in a truck.We arenot convinced that on this surmise alone we can hold thatthe accused has given a false explanation.It is notuncommon in villages for children to go about the field andwalk short distances while coming back to the village.Inany event the accused had given an explanation that he sentthe girl back to the village in a truck and the same cannotbe held to be not plausible and therefore false.Then the last circumstance relied upon by the courtsbelow is the presence of some abrasions on the genital ofthe accused and presence of stains blood on the wearingapparels and nail clippings.The prosecution wanted to showthat because of the penetration the accused sustained theabrasions on his penis.When P.W. 8 stated that he couldn't findany sign of sexual intercourse atleast within one hour ofhis examination then it is only a mater of conjectures as towhen the accused had any intercourse.The accused is a managed 57 years and it is not as if he was not used to sexualintercourse.In any event the prosecution has notestablished that the accused had an intercourse on the dayof the occurrence.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to the property disputes, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log and that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and the injured discharged from the hospital.He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Page 2 of 4[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.Page 3 of 4O.P No.9339 of 2020 25.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 4Page 4 of 4The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, & 506 (ii) of I.P.C in Crime No.1306 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 4 Crl.O.P No.9339 of 2020Page 1 of 4The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant.Hence, the complaint.[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.25.06.2020 asihttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 4 Crl.O.P No.9339 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur,The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station, Thiruvarur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2 Facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus :(a) The prosecutrix used to reside in a hostel at village Lasangaon for the purpose of school education.To celebrate holy month of Ramzan, she had returned to her parental house located at Room No.12, New Mhada Transit Camp Chawl No.A/50, Kokari Agar, Antop Hill, Mumbai.The prosecutrix / PW1 then attempted to contact her mother telephonically, but could not.Because of the horrified incident, being disturbed mentally, she consumed eighteen tablets of medicine of her mother and became unconscious.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::Zuber Khan returned to the house along with father of the prosecutrix.They saw the prosecutrix lying in the house in unconscious condition.The prosecutrix was then immediately admitted to Sion hospital, Mumbai, for medical treatment.(c) According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix regained consciousness on 4th October 2007 and she narrated the incident to her parents.She did not disclose the same to police on that day.On the next day i.e. on 5 th October 2007, the prosecutrix reported the incident to police and accordingly, the First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 10) came to be recorded.Consequently, Crime No. 206 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered with Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai, against the appellant / accused and his two associates.After registration of the crime in question, investigation started.The prosecutrix has clearly deposed about the incident by giving details thereof while in the witness box.The evidence of the prosecutrix shows that her mouth was gagged at the time of the incident.the judgment and order dated 20th December 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.2 of2008, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376(1) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The appellant / accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC, and for the avk 1/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc offence punishable under Section 376(1) read with 34 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::Police recorded spot panchnama by visiting the spot of the incident.Clothes of the prosecutrix came to be seized.Statement of witnesses were recorded and the avk 3/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc appellant / accused came to be arrested.His clothes were also seized.Papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix came to be collected.Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.On completion of routine investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(d) After committal of the case, Charge for the offences punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC came to be framed against the appellant / accused.He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.(e) In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant / accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence.PW1 is the prosecutrix and the report lodged by her is at Exhibits 10 and 10A. PW2 Kamrunissa Khan is the mother of the prosecutrix.PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas is Medical Officer working with Lokmanya Tilak avk 4/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc Hospital, Sion.She treated the prosecutrix and subsequently referred her for further examination to Gynecologist PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere, working in the said hospital.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(f) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant / accused and he was sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Ms.Nasreen Ayubi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant / accused.By taking me through the entire record and proceedings, the learned advocate argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution goes to show that the family of the prosecutrix and that of the appellant / accused were avk 5/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc on hostile terms.Though PW2 Kamrunissa Khan claimed that the appellant/accused had given threats of dire consequences to her, strangely enough, no report of such threats came to be lodged by her at any point of time.The enmity between the parties points out that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated in the crime in question by the prosecuting party, because of dispute over electric connection to the house of the prosecutrix and her mother.It is further argued that forensic evidence in no manner supports the case of the prosecution and Chemical Analyser's reports are negative.The learned advocate by pointing out evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan argued that the incident in question allegedly took place in a populous locality of the slum at Antop Hill.However, no independent witness is examined by the prosecution to show that the appellant/accused and his associates entered the house or ran away from the said house because of sound of falling of utensils.Arrest panchnama of the appellant/accused is not prepared nor proved during the course of the trial.With this, the learned advocate argued that the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::My attention is drawn to the statement of the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that because of ramzan nobody came out of the house at the relevant time.It is further argued that evidence that evidence of PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere fully supports and corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::the mouth of the prosecutrix as well as her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan shows that the prosecutrix was residing in a hostel at Lasangaon for the purpose of education and she had returned just 20 -22 days back to her parental house to celebrate holy month of Ramzan.As seen from the evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, at the time of the incident, her daughter i.e. PW1 was alone at the house.There is no material in cross-examination of both these witnesses to infer that there was somebody else accompanying the prosecutrix at the time of the incident at her home.On this backdrop, let us examine what the prosecutrix deposed about the actual incident.7 It is evidence of the prosecutrix that at about 6.00 p.m. of 2nd October 2007, she was preparing food at her house.She further deposed that the appellant / accused accompanied by his two associates entered in her house.One of the associates of the appellant / accused closed the door from inside and another avk 8/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc gagged her mouth.Her thighs were pressed by both of them and then, the appellant / accused removed the salwar and committed rape on her.As per version of the prosecutrix, then she kicked the appellant / accused causing his fall on the utensils kept in the house.Because of the sound of falling of utensils, the appellant / accused and his associates ran away from the spot.The prosecutrix further stated that, thereafter, she tried to contact her mother by making a telephone call.Her evidence shows that she was out of house for that purpose for five minutes.She could not contact her mother.Then, she decided to commit suicide and consumed 18 tablets of medicine prescribed to her mother and became unconscious.In her cross-examination, it is elicited from her that on 4 th October 2007 itself, she disclosed the incident to her mother as well as to the doctor.Her cross-examination further reflects that she was an indoor patient at the hospital for twelve days.The prosecutrix further admitted that in front of her room, there is a lane and avk 9/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc thereafter a chawl.People used to go by that lane.It is worthwhile to note that evidence of the prosecutrix that the appellant / accused entered inside her house accompanied by his two associates and raped her with active assistance of his associates is not at all challenged in the cross-examination.Even no suggestion of denials are given to the prosecutrix during the course of her cross-examination by the defence.However, let us attempt to scan the evidence of the prosecution in order to ascertain whether version of the prosecutrix gains corroboration from other evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::The report lodged by the prosecutrix is at Exhibits 10 and 10A. When it is compared with her substantive evidence before the court, it is seen that evidence of the prosecutrix is perfectly in consonance with her FIR and as such, she stands corroborated by the FIR lodged by her.10 PW2 Kamrunissa Khan in her chief-examination itself has stated that she had dispute with the appellant / accused over avk 11/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc the issue of electric connection and as she could not pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- demanded by the appellant / accused on that count, she was subjected to threats and the appellant / accused threatened her that he will do such an act that she will remember him throughout her life.No doubt, hostility is a double edged weapon, but many a times, it acts as a motive for commission of crime.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::11 The mother of the prosecutrix further deposed that upon finding her daughter unconscious on 2 nd October 2007, she took her to Sion hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient.PW2 Kamrunissa Khan further deposed that on 4 th October 2007, her daughter (PW1) regained consciousness and had disclosed to her that on 2nd October 2007, the appellant / accused Murgan along with two unknown persons entered in the house and the appellant / accused forcibly committed rape on her.12 From cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan it is brought on record that it was in the morning hours of 4 th October avk 12/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc 2007 itself that PW1 had disclosed the incident to this witness.It is also elicited from the cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan that the distance between Wadala T.T. Police Station and her house can be travelled within a span of five minutes.She also admitted that she had not disclosed the incident to police on 4 th October 2007 but with an explanation that she was under the shock of the incident.This witness has also admitted that her house is surrounded by other houses where people reside.This witness further admitted that she had not lodged any complaint about threats given by the appellant / accused.13 On appreciation of evidence of PW1 prosecutrix and her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, it is crystal clear that the incident in question was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her mother in the morning hours of 4 th October 2007 when the prosecutrix regained consciousness.This narration constitutes former statement of the prosecutrix in respect of the incident when her mind was unpolluted from the external interference.Use of such former statement of the prosecutrix can be made to avk 13/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc corroborate her version as per the provisions of Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan disclosing former statement of the prosecutrix made to her immediately after regaining consciousness after the incident in question, fully corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.14 The line of cross-examination of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan - mother of the prosecutrix is to the effect that despite knowing about the incident on 4 th October 2007 itself and though her house is very near to the jurisdictional police station, no attempts were made by the prosecuting party to lodge the FIR against the appellant / accused.The testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix contains answer to this aspect of the matter.She deposed that she was under mental shock.One may argue that the incident in question took place on 2 nd October 2007, the prosecutrix regained consciousness on 4th October 2007, her parents as well as the doctor were informed about the incident on 4th October 2007 itself, but still the FIR came to be lodged on 5 th October 2007, and therefore, there is delay in lodging the FIR, avk 14/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc which is fatal to the prosecution.However, it needs to be kept in mind that the prosecutrix has deposed that on 4th October 2007 because of pain and agony of the incident she could not lodge report to the police.Her mother PW2 Kamrunissa Khan has stated that as she was under mental shock after hearing the disclosure by the prosecutrix, she could not lodge the report on 4 th October 2007 itself.If properly explained, delay in lodging the FIR in the matter of sexual offence is of no consequence.Valuable reference can be had to this proposition from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarath 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered and enumerated several reasons for delay in approaching police in sexual offences.Those are as under :::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive Society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.1 AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753 avk 15/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the Society or being looked down by the Society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(3) She would have to brave the whole world.(4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered.(5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family.(6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself.(7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her.(8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo.avk 16/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy.(10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.(11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::(12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.In the light of these observations, though infact a marginal delay in lodging the FIR finds explanation in the case of the prosecution, even if it is assumed that there is some delay in lodging the FIR, it is of no consequence.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::double edged weapon and can prove to be a motive for commission of offence.In the case in hand, the prosecutrix and her family members were residing in a slum area.As seen from the evidence of PW2 Kamrunissa Khan, it was the appellant / accused who had demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for getting electric connection to her room.The appellant / accused is not an employee of electric supply company.This indicates that the appellant / accused was in a dominating position to demand an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the family of the prosecutrix for getting supply of electricity to their house.Considering the fact that parents of the prosecutrix were residing in the slum area having dominance of the appellant / accused, the fact that PW2 Kamrunissa Khan had not lodged report of previous threat by the appellant / accused to the police, cannot be given any overbearing importance to reject her testimony.For these reasons, testimony of the prosecutrix as well as her mother are found to be reliable and trustworthy.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::of the prosecutrix is the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution on record.Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas, so also contemporaneous papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix which are at Exhibit 15A congruously shows that it was in the night intervening 2nd October 2007 and 3rd October 2007 and precisely at about 2.32 a.m. of 3 rd October 2007, that the prosecutrix was admitted to Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Hospital.Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas shows that after regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix /pw1 had given history of sexual assault, and therefore, she was referred to gynecologist i.e. PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere.As per version of PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere, on 4 th October 2007, he examined the prosecutrix and recorded history given by her in medical case papers (Exhibit 15A).As per version of this witness, upon examining the prosecutrix medically, he found evidence of reddening in surrounding area of introitus hymen present marginally.There was a bruise mark, pink in colour on right elbow, medial side of the prosecutrix.PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere deposed that after medical examination of the avk 19/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc prosecutrix, he opined (Exhibit 22) that there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with evidence of sign of struggle.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::17 Evidence of PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas and PW6 Dr.Papers of medical treatment of the prosecutrix show that the attending Medical Officers i.e. PW4 Dr.Gene Thomas and PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere had recorded the history as sexual assault by three persons.Name of the appellant / accused is figuring as the culprit in the history recorded at 8.15 a.m. of 4th October 2007 by the Medical Officers in the medical case papers at Exhibit 15A. These medical papers also reveal that upon internal examination of the prosecutrix, the Medical Officers found her hymen absent as well as reddening in area around introitus hymen.PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dere had recorded history given by the prosecutrix at 1.15 p.m. of 4 th October 2007, as reflected in medical case papers Exhibit 15A wherein the prosecutrix had narrated about sexual assault by the appellant / avk 20/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc accused.This medical evidence is fully corroborating the version of the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::18 Clothes of the prosecutrix came to be seized vide seizure panchnama Exhibit 13 in presence of PW3 Mohd. Nasir Shaikh by the Investigating Officer PW7 P.S.I. Suhas Anant Yadav.Evidence of PW3 Mohd. Nasir Shaikh, to the effect that upon seizure, clothes of the prosecutrix were sealed, is not challenged in the cross-examination.It shows that salwar and kurta of the prosecutrix were stained with human blood.This implies that the prosecutrix was subjected to violence and corroborates her version about the incident.19 Undoubtedly, the place of the incident is surrounded by several houses.It is a populous area.House of the prosecutrix was having lane in front of it, which was used by passers by.The defence has criticized the avk 21/23::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 ::: 211-APPEAL-369-2012-J.doc version of the prosecution by stating that, still, no independent witness who had seen the appellant / accused and his associates entering in the house or leaving the house, so also hearing sounds of falling of utensils are examined by the prosecution.This submission is not having any merit because evidence of the prosecutrix shows that her mouth was gagged at the time of the incident in question.It was the month of holy Ramzan and the prosecutrix has stated that because of this reason, nobody was coming out of the house.Even otherwise, when available evidence is sufficient for proving the guilt, the non- examination of other witnesses, though available, does not render the prosecution case suspect.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::20 In the result, the prosecution has established that the appellant / accused with the help of his associates wrongfully restrained the prosecutrix / PW1 and committed rape on her.The sentence imposed is also legal and appropriate.The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:04:49 :::

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

It is the case of the prosecution that one Rama Shankar Satvi was staying at Village Khutal, Taluka Wada, along with his wife Sitabai and son Vijay and with deceased Ujwala and their children.The deceased Ujwala married with accused No.1 Vijay prior to about six years from the date of the incident.It is the case of the prosecution that initially for about 1 and ½ years since their marriage, the accused No.1 and the deceased, were staying happily.Subsequently, the accused No.1 started beating the deceased and was also subjected to illtreatment and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 4 APEAL 906 of 1990 cruelty.It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 also treated the deceased with cruelty.The deceased used to complain about the said illtreatment to her brother Laxman Balu Mali and Mother Gangabai Mali and brother-in-law Bhaskar Balu Komb.As per the case of the prosecution, on 15-04-1986, the deceased Ujawala left the house for doing the labour work, but she did not return in the evening.Thereafter, her father-in-law i.e. Shankar, tried to search her in a nearby area and ultimately found that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at a tree.He thereafter, informed the police officer of at Wada Police Station.Krishna V. Patil (PSI) made entry in the register as an accidental death and thereafter, went to the scene of the offence and removed the deadbody from the tree.Inquest panchanama was prepared.When he reached at the field, he saw that the deceased has hanged herself to a tree and that she was not alive.He further deposed that he then returned to his house and narrated the said incident to her son and wife and gave complaint to the police.In the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that the deceased wife had not seen the accused No.1 at the time of their marriage.He however, admitted that the deceased used to stay for about 7-8 days and she used to go back to the parents house for a long time.He has stated that the deceased was his younger sister and that the marriage has taken place prior to 7 hears of the incident.He deposed that for initial 1 and ½ years, the deceased and her husband were staying happily and subsequently, the accused No.1 started beating her.He stated that the deceased had came to their house 4-5 days prior to the incident of hanging.On inquiry, the deceased told that she was beaten by accused Nos.1 and 2 and she will go back to her matrimonial house after she becomes all right.The said witness stated that after 2-3 days, the husband and sister-in-law of the deceased came to their house and took her back to their house.In the cross-examination, the said witness explicitly admitted that he is not having any medical certificate to show that the deceased was treated by Doctor.He stated that at the relevant time, he was Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Wada.The said doctor had performed postmortem examination of the deceased.He has deposed that at the time of external examination, he found that the neck of the deadbody was stretched and face congested and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 11 APEAL 906 of 1990 swollen.In her evidence, she stated that prior to the 8 days of the incident, the deceased had been to her parental house and there was a swelling on her neck.On an inquiry, the deceased told that she was assaulted by her husband.In the cross-examination, the said witness admitted that the accused No.1 gave two mounds of paddy as dowry at the time of marriage.The sister of the deceased Smt.DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) : -This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th December, 1990 passed by the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.323 of 1987, by which the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 2 APEAL 906 of 1990 learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the appellants under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 as well as under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as IPC).By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default, to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.The appellant/accused No.1 is also convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer one year R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of which, the appellant/accused No.1 shall suffer one month R.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The appellant No.2 who was the original accused No.2 in the above Sessions Case, was also convicted under Sections 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to suffer R.I., for one month.She was also convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I., for one month.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out to the Court that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 3 APEAL 906 of 1990 appellant/accused No.1 Mr.Vijay Rama Satvi, has died.We accordingly directed the learned APP to make an inquiry about the same and today, she has confirmed the said fact that the appellant No.1 has already died.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::In this connection, she has placed on record a fax message which she has received from the concerned police station.The said fax massage is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.In view of the above factual position, the above appeal stands abated qua appellant/accused No.1 Mr.Vijay Rama Satvi.Now, the above appeal is required to be decided regarding appellant/accused No.2 only.At the time of hearing of the above appeal, this Court has also issued notice to the accused for enhancement of the punishment, bearing Suo Motu Criminal Petition No.1 of 1991 and the same is also taken for hearing with the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The deadbody was thereafter sent to the hospital for post-mortem and Dr.Waran, conducted the post-mortem.A complaint was accordingly lodged vide Exh.32 against the aforesaid accused.Offence was registered at C.R.No.I-41 of 1986 under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.Subsequently, both the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 5 APEAL 906 of 1990 accused came to be arrested.After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the Court of J.M.F.C., who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::On 08-06-1989, a charge was framed against both the accused under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.Both the accused did not plead guilty to the charges levelled against them.During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Mr.Laxman Balu Mali was examined as P.W.2, who was the brother of the deceased.Mohan Ramchandra Waran (P.W.3) was also examined by the prosecution, who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased.The mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.4 and the brother-in-law Mr.The investigating Officer Krishna Vithoba Patil, was examined as P.W.7 by the prosecution.The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 19-12-1990, came to the conclusion that both the accused are guilty for an offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly awarded sentence, as stated above.It is the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, which ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 6 APEAL 906 of 1990 is challenged by both the accused by way of present appeal.As pointed out earlier, at the time of admitting the appeal, since the Court was of the opinion that sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, is required to be enhanced, a notice was therefore, issued to both the accused to show cause as to why the sentenced awarded to them should not be enhanced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in convicting the accused under Section 498(A) as well as 306 of Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the marriage between the deceased Ujwala and the accused No.1, was solemnized prior to seven years from the date of incident and the deceased unfortunately was not willing to cohabit with the accused No.1 and she infact, dislike the accused No.1 from the beginning.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased frequently used to go at her maternal house and was not willing to come and stay with the husband, but on the insistence of her parents, she used to go back at her matrimonial house.It is submitted by him that the deceased and accused belonging to a tribal community and in the said community, the husband gives dowry to a wife, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 7 APEAL 906 of 1990 which fact was established in the evidence.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it is not a ground where the deceased committed suicide on the ground of demand of dowry amount.It is submitted by him that there is absolutely no medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment or beating at the hands of either the accused No.1/husband or mother-in-law.The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that none of the neighbours of the vicinity have been examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment or beating by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in any manner.It is contended by him that as a matter of fact, the father-in-law of the deceased informed the police about the incident in question.He noticed the deadbody of his daughter-in-law which was found in hanging condition on a tree in the forest.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when there is no evidence about any sort of illtreatment by the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted the appellants/accused for an offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by him that if really, it is the case of illtreatment on the part of the husband or mother-in-law of the deceased, at least during the period of 6-7 years of married life, the parents of the deceased could have lodged their protest in this behalf, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 8 APEAL 906 of 1990 before the in-laws of the deceased or either by filing any police complaint.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was not willing to stay with the accused No.1 husband and she was interested in getting divorce.But since the amount of dowry was required to be repaid by the parents of the girl, that they were insisting the deceased to go back to the matrimonial house and that is the reason why perhaps, she committed the said act of suicide.The learned APP in her turn, supported the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned APP contended that as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially from the evidence of the mother and brother, brother-in-law and sister of the deceased, it is clearly established that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment and was beaten by the appellant/accused, which ultimately resulted into this unfortunate incident.It is submitted by the learned APP that simply because no complaint has been filed regarding illtreatment or beating against the appellants/accused, it cannot be said that the factum of such illtreatment narrated by the deceased to her relatives, is unbelievable.The learned APP further submitted that since allegations was also made against the mother-in-law of the deceased, she has been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 9 APEAL 906 of 1990 appellant/accused No.2 is required to be enhanced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State at some length and have also gone through the evidence on record.In order to find out whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to weigh the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The prosecution has examined Mr.Ramashankar Satvi (P.W.In para No.3 of his deposition, he stated that on the date of incident, the deceased had gone for work on the field.She did not return back in the evening.He therefore, went to see as to what has happened.The said witness further admitted that no quarrel had taken place between him, his son and his wife with the deceased in any manner.He further ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 10 APEAL 906 of 1990 stated that he had already complained to the parents of the deceased that she was not staying in the matrimonial house and that she had informed her parents that she did not like her husband.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The prosecution has also examined Laxman Balu Mali (P.W.He also found that there were two abraded superficial injuries on the calf and the age of which were 6 to 12 hours.Except the same, there was no other injuries on the deadbody of the deceased.The cause of the death is stated to have been asphyxias with apoplexy due to hanging.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::The mother of the deceased Gangabai Balu Mali was examined as P.W.4 by the prosecution.She also in her deposition, reiterated the fact that prior to 8-9 days of the incident, the deceased came to their house and stated that she was badly beaten by her husband.In her cross-The prosecution has also examined Mr.Krishna V. Patil (P.W.7) at Exh.21, who has registered the FIR.On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 12 APEAL 906 of 1990 for the appellants submitted that so far as the surviving accused is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence worth the name to suggest that the deceased was subjected to any illtreatment at the hands of the said accused.In this connection, it is required to be noted that the deceased and her husband i.e. original accused No.1, were residing happily for about 1 and ½ years since their marriage.There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that at the time of incident, by which time seven years have passed since the marriage of the deceased and the accused No.1, any grievance/protest in any manner was put forth by the parents of the deceased with the parents of the husband in any manner.It is required to be noted that on behalf of the appellant/accused, it is suggested by the learned counsel that since the deceased wife did not like the husband, she often used to go to her parent's place.The fact that the deceased wife used to go to her parents house frequently, can be said to have been established from the evidence on record.If for such a long period about of five years, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or illtreatment, at least it is expected from the parents of the girl to raise this issue with the parents of the husband or at least such things would have been narrated to other caste community people.The distance between matrimonial house and her parental house is about six kilometers.If any such illtreatment of such a nature had taken place, at least, the nearby neighbours residing in the adjoining houses, normally would come to know about the said aspect.However, no neighbours have been examined to prove the said fact.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Waran (P.W.3) in his evidence, has also clearly stated that there was no other external injuries on the deadbody of the deceased except abrasion on the calf, which according to the learned counsel for the appellants, might have been caused when the deceased tried to hang herself by taking rope in her hand.On the contrary, at the time of marriage, infact the dowry was paid by the husband to the deceased wife.It is pertinent to note that for more than six years, no protest was lodged, nor any complaint was filed by the parents of the deceased in connection with the alleged illtreatment to the accused.Now in this appeal, the Court is required to consider the case of appellant/accused No.2 i.e. mother-in-law only.In our view, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant/accused No.2 treated her daughter-in-law with cruelty or illtreated her in any manner.As a matter of fact, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 14 APEAL 906 of 1990 deceased when she last visited her parental house, she made a complaint about illtreatment, which was attributed to the husband and she has not stated anything about her mother-in-law in this connection.Considering the evidence on record, in our view, it is not possible for us to believe that the deceased was subjected to illtreatment at the hands of mother-in-law i.e. accused No.2 or that she had beaten the accused, by which the deceased wife was compelled to commit suicide.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Explanation to Section 107 states that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::"My mother in law and husband and sister in law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me.They beat me and abused me.My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time.He has illicit connections with my sister-in-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::Considering the totality of the circumstances, as discussed above, especially when for all six years of married life, no steps were taken by the parents of the deceased by lodging protest in any form before any one, including before the parents of the deceased, in our view, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 ::: 17 APEAL 906 of 1990 it is not safe to convict the appellant/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) as well as 306 of Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::In view of the above, in our view, the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused No. 2 is not sustainable.So far as the suo motu enhancement notice is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded one month rigorous imprisonment to the appellant/accused No.2 on the ground that she is an old lady.At the relevant time, she was 55 years of age.Considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the accused No.2 is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code.In view of what is stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, is set aside.The bail bond of appellant/accused No.2 stands cancelled.The suo motu Petition No.1 of 1991 is also disposed of ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:20:11 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

7 It is seen from the records, the petitioner was President of the fourth respondent Society.2 The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.3 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.4 The Managing Director, T-793, The Mannargudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Kamarajar Street, Pathaladi, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.5 R.Ayyappan Vice President and Executive Member, The Mannargudi Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.W.P.No.3870 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.3932 of 201718.05.2017http://www.judis.nic.inThe petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made by the respondents.The third respondent also lodged complaint to the Inspector of Police, CCIW, Thiruvarur.Followed by the same, the 5th respondent passed a resolution, dated 14.12.2016 by revoking the earlier resolution passed by the 4th respondent and passed a fresh resolution to the effect that the 5th respondent has taken charge as President of the Society.The respondents 4 and 5 have no authority for removal of the petitioner from the post of President.The competent authority is Registrar under Section 34 of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned resolutions passed by the respondents 4 and 5 are liable to be quashed.4 The learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that statutory enquiry was conducted and the report submitted to the third respondent/Deputy Registrar.The said proceeding is still pending before the second respondent/Joint Registrar.He further submitted that on the basis of the enquiry report, a criminal complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, CCIW (CID), Tiruvarur and F.I.R. has been registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 on 15.11.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 408, 409, 468, 471, 471-A and 34 of I.P.C. for misappropriation of Rs.13,21,349/- against the petitioner and others.During the investigation, petitioner was arrested by the police on 16.11.2016 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi and remanded to judicial custody for 13 days.Thereafter, he was released on bail on 28.11.2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in Crl.The learned Additional Govt. Pleader further submitted that the resolution No.1 passed by the fourth respondent, dated 24.11.2016 removing the petitioner from the office of the President was subsequently cancelled by another resolution, dated 14.12.2016 passed by the 5th respondent/Vice President and other remaining Board members.Hence, the resolution, dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Managing Director ceased to operate and nothing survives to challenge the said resolution.6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, learned Special Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and perused the materials on record.The third respondent ordered statutory inquiry into the alleged financial irregularities.The enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op.Societies Act, 1983 and the report was submitted to the third respondent.On the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent lodged a complaint and F.I.R. has been registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 408, 409, 468, 471, 471-A and 34 of I.P.C. for misappropriation of Rs.13,21,349/- against the petitioner and others and the petitioner was arrested.Subsequently, he was released on bail.8 Further, Deputy Registrar/third respondent also forwarded recommendation for disqualification and removal of the petitioner from the post of President under Section 34 and 36 of TNCS Act to the second respondent and the said proceeding is still pending before the second respondent.At this juncture, the fourth respondent passed the impugned resolution by removing the petitioner as President of the Society.Subsequently, the 5th respondent passed the impugned resolution, dated 14.12.2016 by cancelling the resolution, dated 24.11.2016 passed by the 4th respondent.In the aforesaid resolution, it has been mentioned that on account of disqualification attracted against the petitioner, Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 has been invoked and the 5th respondent assumed the office of the President and exercised the power under Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 in the absence of the petitioner.9 Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested for the alleged offences as stated supra and subsequently released on bail.Further, it has been stated by the third respondent that on the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent has recommended for disqualification and removal of the petitioner from the office of President under Section 34 and 36 of TNCS Act. The said proceeding is still pending with the second respondent.10 On a perusal of Section 36 of the Act, the President of the society shall be removed from the office by the competent authority viz., the Registrar.According to the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, the impugned resolution has been passed under Rule 57 of the TNCS Rules, 1988 when the office of the President is vacant or the President continue to absent, the Vice President shall exercise all the powers of the President.The Board authorised 5th respondent/Vice President to act as President.Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail.In view of the interim order granted by this Court, the Joint Registrar/ second respondent has to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the Deputy Registrar/third respondent.11 The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submits that subsequently, final surcharge proceedings under Section 87(1) of the said Act has been passed wherein the name of the petitioner was dropped in the said proceedings.Admittedly, the criminal case registered in Cr.No.4 of 2016 by the Inspector of Police, CCIW (CID), Tiruvarur is still pending before the concerned Court.12 Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner assumed office of the President of the Society by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of.However, liberty is granted to the respondents 2 and 3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.13 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.3932 of 2017 is closed.18.5.2017Speaking / Non Speaking orderIndex : Yes/No Internet : Yes/Novaan D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

9. PW-1 Tahir (informant) has stated that on 07.10.2012 in the night his daughter aged about 14 years was enticed away by the accused-appellant.He searched his daughter but could not get her.She was seen by Noor Hasan and Kasim being taken by accused accompanied by other accused persons who lived in neighborhood of informant.When he got this information in the next morning at 7.00 AM, he went to the police station, but the police advised him to search the daughter.After two days, he got the written report inscribed by a person and gave it to the concerned police station.After a month, his daughter was delivered to him by the police after completing the formalities.PW-2 victim has stated that on 07.10.2012, in the night, accused Sanjay, who is of her village, came to her house.She was sleeping with her mother.He got her and her mother to smell some thing and thereafter he picked her to railway station by cycle and thereafter took her to Haridwar by train.From Haridwar, he took her to Sidkul by auto-riksha and kept her in a room near factory.Whenever, she tried to alarm, he threatened her by dire consequences and on coming back in the evening he used to commit rape and sexually abuse her against her wishes.On leaving the room, he used to lock the door from the out side.When the accused took her to Roorki, a boy of her village saw her and informed her family member and the police.Thereafter, the police recovered her.She has further stated that at that time she was 13 years old.PW-3 Mohd. Kasim has stated that he knows the informant Tahir, his daughter and accused Sanjay.About a year ago when he had gone to forest to attend the call of nature, he saw the accused Sanjay going with victim catching her hand.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.5.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, District Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs.Sanjay), whereby learned court below has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 363 IPC, for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, three months additional imprisonment, for the offence under section 366 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, three months additional imprisonment and for the offence under section 376 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default, nine months additional imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and the undergone period has been directed to be adjusted in the sentence.It has been further directed by the court below to give Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim.The brief prosecution story is that on 07.10.2012 in the night, the daughter of informant aged about 14 years was enticed away by the accused-appellant who lived in the neighborhood of victim.While they were going, they were seen by Noor Hasan and Kasim.In the kidnapping of victim, the family members of accused appellant, Mangat, Smt. Reena, Menkumar, Smt. Shakuntala have also assisted the accused-appellant.On the written report filed by informant, a case was registered against accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC.The case was investigated.The victim was recovered and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate on the basis of which, offence under section 376 IPC was also added by the Investigating Officer.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC against accused-appellant.The prosecution examined PW-1Tahir (informant), PW-2 victim, PW-3 Mohd. Kasim, PW-4 Dr. Renu Sharma, PW-5 SI Amar Singh, PW-6 Ravindra Singh, PW-7 Constable Indrajeet and PW-8 Dr. Surendra Singh, Radiologist to prove the incident and the documents such as written report, Ext. Ka-1, Supurdaginama, Ext. Ka-2, memo of clothes, Ext. Ka-3, statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. Ka-4, medical report of victim, Ext. Ka-5, Pathology and X-ray report, Ext. Ka-6 and 7, site map, Ext. Ka-8, memo of arrest, Ext. Ka-9, copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-10, memo of arrest and information Ext. Ka-11, charge sheet Ext. Ka-12, statement of victim Ext. Ka-13, photostat of admission register Ext. Ka-14, FIR Ext. Ka-15, carban copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-16, arrest of accused Ext. Ka-17 and X-ray report Ext. Ka-18 and X-ray plate Ext. I.The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the incident and has stated that because of enmity with regard to election of Village Pradhan in which he had given vote to one Sukkha Khande, he has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant.After hearing the prosecution and defence and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed in which the impugned judgment has been challenged.Heard Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order impugned in this appeal on the ground that judgment is illegal, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures.The testimony of witnesses does not support the prosecution story and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond shadow of any doubt.The victim was major as per medical report and she herself left her father's house with her own free will and consent and lived with accused-appellant on so many places without raising any alarm.He informed about it to the father of the victim in the morning.He investigated the case and recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site map on the pointing out of informant.The accused was arrested on bus stand and mobile call details were traced and father of the victim was asked to provide birth certificate and photograph of the victim.On 03.11.2012 at Kailashpur bus station, accused was seen and effort was made to arrest him but any how he ran away.The victim was recovered with him on 04.11.2012 and accused Sanjay was arrested.The clothes of victim were taken in possession and after recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was delivered back to her father.Thereafter, along with medical report, charge sheet was filed before the court.14. PW-6 Ravindra Singh has stated that he is Principal in Primary Pathshala, Beri Jama, Block Baliyakhedi.On 20.10.2012, father of victim had come to the school and he asked to provide birth certificate of victim and seeing the attendance and admission register of victim, he provided birth certificate to him.PW-8 Dr. Surendra Singh is the Senior Radiologist who stated that on 5.11.2012 in S.B.D. Hospital, he conducted the x-ray of victim on the basis of which he prepared the medical report.In State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1993, the girl was picked and taken to a tub-well and was raped and thereafter was dropped on her college gate and she appeared in examination and on returning back to her home place, she disclosed the event to her mother and then the FIR was lodged.In Dildar Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 3084, where the victim was below 16 years in age and accused-appellant was her art teacher.Where she was kept in Haridwar, other were also living in other rooms of the building as there was common toilet and there was a window in the room opening from inside and she could cause alarm.Order dated - 02.08.2019 RCT/-(Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava)

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.